Hollywood Babble On & On #833: Lionsgate + Summit Sitting In A Tree M-E-R-G-I-N-G!

Well, it looks like it's all done but the signing.  Lionsgate Pictures is reportedly just inches away from signing a deal that will merge them with upstart indie Summit Entertainment.  Some are saying that this is a good deal, especially for Lionsgate, because it will connect them with Summit's expertise in foreign distribution, but I fear the whole thing is a sort of mixed affair.

So let's look at the Pros and Cons of this deal...

PROS:

1. PRICE.  Reports say that the final price will be about $350 million in cash, $50 million in stock, and the assumption of Summit's debt. That's not a bad price for even a mini-movie studio with the all important library Lionsgate needs for its growing television assets. Now the debt is expected to be wiped out by...

2. TWILIGHT FRANCHISE. The epic saga of teen angst, necrophilia, that teaches girls that true love can only be found with a old predator, has sucked hundreds of millions, if not billions, from hysterical tweens and teen girls. The finale of the franchise, which has been chopped into two parts, the last part is forthcoming, is expected to pay off all the debts, and pave the way for Lionsgate's Hunger Games franchise.

3. INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION. Reports say that Summit has got a lot more knowledge and experience in international sales and distribution than Lionsgate. So anything that eases the way into the increasingly important foreign markets is a plus.

CONS.

1. TWILIGHT FRANCHISE.  With the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2, it's over, done and dusted.  While the final chapter is pretty much guaranteed to make a mint and a half, there are no guarantees that the merged company's follow ups will catch on that big.  Why?....

2. THE FICKLE FINGER OF FRANTIC FEMALES.  The folks at Lionsgate/Summit are counting on The Hunger Games to take up the mantle of Twilight and run with it.

Well, that's really, really risky. There is no sort of fame more dangerous than tween/teen girl fame. When you have it in your hands, it's a license to print money because it is so intense. However, it's like a very fragile bird, hold it too tight, and you can kill it, hold it too loose, and it will fly away to something else. And the problem is that this little bird has an expiration date, and no one knows exactly when that date is.

The one thing people do know is that when that date comes, everything associated with the one time source of such intense hysteria, becomes anathema. That means you can't use that franchise as a selling point beyond its camp value.

3. LIONSGATE'S OVERALL STRATEGY. Lionsgate made its bones on low budget genre movies that the major studios were mostly ignoring.  Lately though its strategy seems to be to imitate the big studios, but to try to do it cheaper.  Now while some may argue the merits of this strategy, I think they're missing the point.  Doing what's already being done by the majors does nothing to fill the huge gaps in the marketplace between the big studio blockbuster movies and the indie-art house films.

Paramount is having success with their micro-budget Insurge division, but since it's a major studio, it's only a matter of time before they screw it up. I'm sure that right now the President of Paramount is looking at the returns from The Devil Inside and thinking: "This film would have had a way bigger weekend if it had a $100 million budget and starred Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts."

4. ONE LESS COMPANY. If you're an independent producer, this merger means one last company available to buy your movies, and it means less competition for the big boys to worry about.

Anyway, those are the facts as I see them.

Hollywood Babble On & On #829: Selling Summit

Indie movie studio Summit Entertainment is up for sale, but the sale itself probably won't go through until some time in 2012.

Now I think I should start with a little history to flesh out the story, before I get to the issue at hand.

Summit Entertainment started in 1991 primarily to handle sales of film rights to foreign markets for a partnership of independent producers.  As the 1990s progressed, the company's mission expanded into co-producing movies, and finally evolving into the independent producer and distributor we all know today.

It's first few years were iffy, suffering a series of box office bombs but kept afloat by its position handling the foreign language release  for the lucrative first American Pie movie.

Summit Entertainment finally achieved real mega money success in 2008 with the Twilight franchise. The films, based on the epic book trilogy about a moody teenage girl torn between choosing to lose her virginity to necrophilia or bestiality raked in huge heaping piles of money from other moody teenage girls all over the world.

Lionsgate first started sniffing around Summit as a possible buyer around this time, but the deal was never consummated.

Now Lionsgate is back looking to climb the Summit, but this time it has competition with a bid from hedge fund Colony Capital.

So let's look at what both company's probably want from this deal, and what they will most likely do with the company...

Lionsgate is already the biggest independent movie distributor in North America. So it doesn't need Summit's distribution capabilities. What it most likely wants is to have the lucrative Twilight movies in their library.

Now let's look at the other suitor...

Colony Capital has been investing heavily in the independent movie business, and are co-owners of the once venerable Miramax company.

Now there are two possible scenarios behind their purchase of Summit.

#1. In keeping with the way they're running Miramax, they are simply looking to beef up their film library, primarily with the Twilight movie franchise, and all the moody teenage girl money it can bring in.  Summit's other films are just extras because, let's be honest here, the company hasn't exactly peaked with their non-Twilight movies.  

Or...

#2. Colony Capital is looking to set up their own distribution for Miramax, and revive it as viable and functioning independent movie studio that produces and releases new films instead of just trying to coast on what others have made before them.

Personally, I hope that scenario #2 is what Colony Capital is looking for.  Because while the domestic box office is at a 16 year low, that low is primarily caused by massive gaps in the market caused by the inattentive, narrow minded, major studios.  There is room for an enterprising, lean and efficient movie company to step in and fill those gaps.

When the bidding starts afresh in the New Year, I hope the best bidder with the best plan wins.

Hollywood Babble On & On #514: Take The Money & Run

Welcome to the show folks...

Today we have two stories of times when people are either thinking of their financial future, or failing to think of their financial future.

1. FULL MOON-FULL PAYCHECK

There are rare moments when I have to publicly disagree with Nikki Finke. She recently wrote a piece about the supporting players in the Twilight Saga getting a $4+ million payday for the final movie(s) Eclipse. She literally called them brats for asking for the money and ruminated on how easily they could be replaced.

Now I beg to differ.

It's not bratty to show some concern about your future.

One the most dangerous positions to be in is to be at the mercy of angst addled tweens and teens, especially in a franchise that generates as much hysteria as the Twilight franchise. The usual ending to such a franchise is for the careers of the stars to be completely dead in the water within 5 minutes of the final movie's conclusion. Their fans don't really care about the actors or their careers, they only care about the sense of belonging they get from conforming to that sort of hysterical fad alongside their friends and schoolmates.

No one been able to prove if any of the franchise's headlining stars can carry a non-Twilight movie, so you have to plan for worst but hope for the best when you're one of the second bananas.

And don't talk about residuals and royalties. This is Hollywood we're talking about, not the magical land of make believe where unicorns frolic among rainbow topped fields of golden pixie-grass.

My advice, get cash, then stash cash, because no one wants to go from a #1 movie franchise to working in a convenience store.

2. YOU GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO HOLD THEM...

...know when to hold them, know when to walk away, know when to shut the fuck up.

My apologies to Kenny Rogers, but I had to bastardize his sage poetry to make a point.

When you're a young actor in Hollywood you need the wisdom to know when to shut the hell up.

Case #1: Actress Megan Fox compared Michael Bay, the director of the Transformers movies, which literally made and practically carry her career to Hitler. Now that Transformers 3 is on the way, Bay has announced that Fox will be nowhere near it.

OUCH!

Case #2: Involves her former Transformer costar Shia Laboeuf, and his recent admission that Indy 4 kinda sucked.

Oops.

Well, in the case of Megan Fox she'll have the glorious success of Jennifer's Body to fall back on.

Oh, wait, no that's not quite right.

Of the two cases LaBoeuf is in slightly better shape. He's actually had some films sell tickets outside of the Transformers franchise, and there's no deodorant in Hollywood that works better than cold hard cash. However, as film critic Christian Toto pointed out, he's just a couple of bombs from being in pretty hard career shape.

Also it's shrewd to note that the bulk of his starring roles have been in Dreamworks productions or co-productions, and that Dreamworks mogul Steven Spielberg, the director of the kinda sucky Indy 4, has been his biggest advocate since the beginning of young Shia's career. Spielberg's always viewed Shia as a 10% less spaz version of himself at that age, and has literally crammed him down the throat of the movie-going public.

Fox, on the other hand, is known for Transformers, posing for every red carpet photograph like she's been interrupted mid-coitus, fostering a slutty image that she then denies, and a starring role that sank faster than The Nautilus after Captain Nemo realized he left the back hatch open.

Sure, she's in the upcoming Jonah Hex, but it seems that her role is to fill out a corset, and not much else. That doesn't sell tickets, in fact, it has the opposite effect, because the people who used to pay to see a certain starlet in a corset in a movie, are now just staying home, downloading the pics off the internet and ... well, we don't have to get into any more details.

If she's going to save her fledgling career she's going to need a new image where she doesn't say stupid things to the world press about the people who sign her checks, and rack up some actual hits. Because if she doesn't... well, we don't have to get into any details.

Hollywood Babble On & On #499: Summit Buys Fair Game

Welcome to the show folks...

Summit Pictures, the folks behind the Twilight franchise, are branching into the realm of Oscar baiting by snapping up feature drama Fair Game, dramatizing the story of CIA agent Valerie Plame (played by Naomi Watts) and her husband Joe Wilson (played by Sean Penn).

All I can say is that I hope Summit didn't pay too much for this movie, and here's why:

1. The Stars: Naomi Watts is a good actress and a beautiful woman, and she's even been in a few successful films. Yet ask the average bloke on the street about her, and they'll say: "Naomi Who?" To which you would have to respond: "You know, the chick in King Kong?" and then you might get a nod of semi-recognition. She doesn't exactly inflame the passions of the movie-going/ticket-buying public.

Her co-star Sean Penn does inflame audience passions, but not in a good way. The average movie-goer sees his name on a marquee and they move along to anything that doesn't feature Sean Penn. You could actually advertise movies with the tagline: "100% Sean Penn Free," and boost your ticket sales. His audience are Academy voters, whose support is the foundation of his entire career, without them he'd probably be homeless, or worse, doing a reality show on cable.

2. The Story: It's one of the most divisive, and misunderstood stories of the past decade, and still generates controversy and arguments, so any interpretation will spark debate, so...

Here's the basics- On the eve of war with Iraq, intelligence agencies from half a dozen countries said that Saddam Hussein sent his top nuclear expert to Niger to try to purchase "Yellow Cake" uranium. The attempt to buy the uranium failed, but the attempt itself was still considered a violation of the sanctions against Iraq. Valerie Plame, working at CIA HQ in Langley, suggested her husband Joe Wilson, a former Ambassador, to go to Niger to investigate the claims, despite having no experience in intelligence gathering. Wilson is sent, by his own words "sits by the pool" at his hotel, talks to a few local contacts, and accomplishes nothing. Wilson returns home and writes an article for a major newspaper claiming that he was sent by the State Department, under the order of VP Dick Cheney, and found nothing.

The State Department retaliates to his story through Under-Secretary Richard Armitage who leaks to columnist Robert Novak that Wilson's trip was Plame's idea, not theirs, and that she works for the CIA. A media firestorm begins, and a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate the leak. Richard Armitage, the actual leak, is never charged, or even seriously investigated. Despite accusations against senior Bush aides like Karl Rove, the only person convicted is a Dick Cheney aide named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He ended up convicted of perjury and obstruction, mostly over giving poor answers to the questions of the special prosecutor.

Valerie Plame quit the CIA, signed a multi-million dollar book deal, and released Fair Game, her memoir of the affair, which despite tons of hype, disappeared from the sales chart fairly quickly.

Yet, very few people know the full story, and judging from reports about the movie, the film isn't anywhere near the full story which will spark...

3. The Right's Reaction: Talk radio, Fox News, and conservative pundits are going to eat the movie alive. According to early peeks, and previews, the film doesn't mention the real leak, Richard Armitage, once. That's like All The President's Men not mentioning the actual Watergate burglary, and it's red meat to those who view the film as yet another exercise in Hollywood political posturing and narcissism under the guise of cinematic "importance."

People do listen to these pundits more than they do the mainstream movie critics, and it's going to nullify the inevitable critical praise those mainstream movie critics are going to lavish on the film. To sell a film like this you really need to make people want to see them, and having some of the loudest voices in the media shitting on it, isn't going to give ticket-buyers the nudge they need.

4. What The Film Is: The Hurt Locker was last year's biggest Oscar winner, but also the weakest box office performer to ever win Best Picture. People tend to avoid any film involving Washington and/or Iraq like it was dripping with plague bacillus. Fair Game the movie is not meant to make money, or even entertain, it is meant to get Oscar nominations for its cast and crew. The audience knows this, realize that they are not part of the formula, and will not be participating.

I just hope Summit knows that as well, and understands what it's getting into.

Hollywood Babble On & On #457: Hey Bub, Wanna Buy A Studio?

Welcome to the show folks...

Sharon Waxman at The Wrap is seeing all the movie companies for sale, and saying that it is definitely a buyer's market. Very few folks seem interested in buying companies like Miramax, Overture Films, (rumored that Summit's being considered for sale as well,) and the once venerable, now borderline bankrupt MGM, and the few that are, are not interested in paying the prices the movie companies think they're worth.

So let's boil down the reasons why to something that's easy to understand:

HOLLYWOOD HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME

Really it does. It got drunk on other people's money during the great age of mergers and acquisitions, and while prices went up, value went down.

Making movies has become prohibitively expensive. Look at the budgets of the "small" movies like romantic comedies, and you'll see amounts that 10-20 years before were paying for "big budget" epics with large casts and mucho special effects. I've written extensively on why movies are so costly to make, and that I call it a "self-fulfilling idiocy," so I won't repeat them here. I'll just stick with saying that such inflation is unnecessary, and artificial, it was not created by natural market forces, so it is inherently unhealthy.

One of the things that used to woo bidders were the studio libraries and the revenue they could produce via home video, television, and other mediums. However, those libraries aren't raking in the green they used to. There are three reasons for this:

1. DVD sales are down. Folks aren't as free with their discretionary spending, and they aren't going to spend good money on something they can't eat, wear, or live in. Add to that the format uncertainty over regular DVDs, Blu-Rays, and online downloads, and you've got a recipe for instant boondoggle.

2. The independent libraries are too small. Most of these companies don't have the capacity to command the proverbial shelf-space whether in stores, or on TV channels, to be considered worth the money they're asking for. Toss in many of the extra jokers being held in those decks, and the value goes down even further. The major studios have literally decades worth of material in their libraries, which brings me to my third reason.

3. The major studio libraries are not well managed at all. My local satellite TV company is doing a free preview of Turner Classic Movies, and I have to admit, that channel reminded me what made me love movies. They aren't the overwrought noise factories being dumped into theaters for no other purpose than to create some sort of techno-based thrill ride. Which makes me ask: WHY ARE THESE MOVIES ONLY ON TCM? Think about it, why is TCM so popular, but these very same movies can't be shown on local stations on rainy weekends the way they used to be when I was a lad. They'll show the goddamn Hunt For Red October on five different stations on any given weekend, but they won't show Casablanca, or Vertigo, or 55 Days At Peking.

Of course I probably already answered my own question, which is corporate synergy. Time-Warner owns TCM, and the great majority of movies shown on TCM. They own it, and they want to be the only ones making money off of these movies. Which strikes me as a bad strategy. I probably won't be getting TCM once the free preview is over, because while I love the movies, I probably can't afford it. Another problem is that the local and basic cable stations would rather show the same piece of shit Woman in Peril pseudo-thriller scraped from the bottom of the Lifetime Channel's dumpster three times a day, than something in black and white, or cinemascope, for fear that stoned teenagers won't put down their iPods and Nintendo Wiis to watch it.

Well, how do they know if they don't try. TCM's popularity seems to show that people will watch it if you show it. But a combination of monopolistic greed (called "synergy" in corporate speak) and ignorance is keeping them from trying it.

The studios need to be selling the films, and that means going beyond just making them available. They should be really pushing them, and using their clout with local and basic cable stations to do it.

How can investors trust their valuation of these libraries, when Hollywood itself can't see the potential of it all?

But I digress....or rant...

Anyway, when you add in the attitude that glamor somehow equates value held by many of the people who run Hollywood, with the brutal reality of the real economics of it all, you have a perfect recipe for a disaster.

That's what I think, what do you think?

Hollywood Babble On & On #445: Some Drippings From My Brain Pan...

Welcome to the show folks...

Not much movie biz news really grabbed me today. The Sundance Festival continued its course of becoming like the films it showcases, an increasingly tedious, irrelevant project, designed solely for boosting the egos of movie stars, and the Oscar noms are being announced tomorrow, and you really can't make me care any less about the Oscars, which leaves me with doing one of my little snippet posts.

So away we go...

SONY'S SORRY STAFF SHITCANNED

Sony Pictures had a pretty good year in 2009, earning their best box-office performance ever, and in honour of that success, they're laying off 6.5% of its workforce.

Now I'm sure that the laid off employees are feeling pretty bad about their situation, but they should remember that their sacrifice will ensure the bonuses and stock options of the people who showed them the door.


WHAT'S MIRAMAX REALLY WORTH?

According to some sources, it looks like the Miramax film library isn't the cash cow many analysts said it was.

Let's just file that under "Well d'uh!"

Most analysis when it comes to Hollywood and revenue is glorified guesswork, but not without its silver lining. That silver lining comes in the form of a serious game of hard-ball on the part of the potential buyers like Summit Entertainment, Studio Canal, Relativity Media, former Snapple entrepreneur billionaire Nelson Peltz.

I've already discussed the pros and cons of Summit buying Miramax so let's look at the other players.

Studio Canal- This French cable TV giant is one of the biggest players in the world, and no doubt would love to get their hands on the Miramax library for their range of TV interests. But the question of whether or not they would use the Miramax brand for new productions is unanswered at this time.

Relativity Media- Claims to produce movies based on sound scientific principles to make them hits. However, they've been recently slammed with a lot of what they claim are "outliers" but everyone else calls money-losing turkeys. They could use some of Miramax's hits and Oscar winners to beef up their library, but it's still open about whether they're serious, considering they're one of the potential bidders for MGM as well. That's a bad case of mergermania.

Nelson Peltz- Self-made billionaire with businesses like Snapple, and pieces of Cadbury Schweppes and Kraft. What he plans to do with the library is a mystery to me. He might be looking to get into home video and TV licensing, or he might be interested in becoming a movie producer, I don't know. Some sources say Peltz's a Republican, which might give former Miramax owner and life-long Democrat Harvey Weinstein that stroke he's been saving up for all these years.

Anyway, all I can say is that while I hope they play hard-ball, because no one can do anything productive with a film company buried under mountains of debt in this economy, I hope they don't bring the price down so low that even the cash-crippled Weinstein Co. gets into the game. TWC's creditors already have enough on their plate.

A SERIOUS ANTI-SEMITE?

There's a lot of talk about the Coen Bros. recent release A Serious Man, accusing it of possible Antisemitism and of showing Jewish people in an unflattering light.

Which makes me ask this question: When did a Coen Bros. film show anyone in a flattering light?

The Irish and Italians don't come off too well in Miller's Crossing, nor do desert dwelling crackers in Raising Arizona, and neither do the snow-dwelling Mid-Western Scandinavians of Fargo. The list goes on. I can't think of any character who doesn't have at least one scene where they don't come across as either venal, petty, or at the very least naive.

The Coen Brothers possess an overall misanthropy that encompasses all the facets of humanity. When they start being all sunshine and unicorns about someone is when you should start worrying that they've been replaced by pod people.

AND I LEAVE YOU WITH THIS LITTLE PALATE CLEANSER

Let this video imbue itself into your dreams....

Hollywood Babble On & On #443: Summiramax?

Welcome to the show folks...

Maybe I wrote my last post a tad too soon... or to be more exact, I may have overlooked another option. According to the indefatigable Nikki Finke, Summit Entertainment, flush with cash from those sparkly emo vampire pics, is making some very preliminary sniffing around the remains of Miramax and might purchase the recently deceased former indie titan.

Now anything could happen to scotch this deal, so I'm going to take a moment to weigh the pros and the cons of Summit Entertainment buying Miramax. So let's look at the facts:

THE NAME MIRAMAX:

PRO: The name represents a certain amount of street cred in the world on independent film. It could make an excellent "art house" or indie acquisition arm for Summit.

CON: The name of this revived company will only be as good as the hustle of the people standing behind it. The people running this revived Miramax would have to start from scratch building relationships with filmmakers and producers, and then fight to keep those relationships strong. Whoever runs this new Miramax has to be willing to burn serious calories to make into something worthwhile.

THE LIBRARY:

PRO: The library has a lot of Oscar winners and even a few big hits. It would make a welcome addition to Summit's library, which consists of sparkly emo-vamp pics, and some flicks no one cares about. They could use the clout that the Miramax library gives them in the never-ending battle for store shelf-space and TV sales.

CON: There are a lot of jokers in that deck because of the company's desire under the Weinsteins to own every indie film ever made, and then re-edit them into cinematic oblivion. Plus, I'm suspicious of Disney selling anything that might have a remote chance of generating revenue. What traps lay in this land of make believe? So any buyer should be alert, and have the numbers and the fine print studied extremely carefully.

THE BAGGAGE

PRO: Miramax doesn't come with MGM's crushing debt, which means it will most likely not crush an over-extended Summit. And a really big plus is that Harvey Weinstein's white hot rage could be used as an alternative energy source, thus freeing America from dependency on foreign oil.

CON: If anyone does buy the company, they will be pestered by the Bros. Weinstein until one side or the other are in their graves, and even then they'll find some way of making their displeasure known. Though it could be used as material for a new Twitter phenomenon "Shit Harvey Says."

So this is where I go to my readers and ask them for their opinions.

Should Summit Entertainment buy Miramax?

Hollywood Babble On & On #436: Musings That Do Not Involve NBC In Anyway... Maybe...If We're Lucky...

Welcome to the show folks...

WEINSTEINS GO A HIRING

Even though they're laying off people harder than an American automaker, The Weinstein Co. is also hiring. Looks like they're picking up a couple of soon-to-ex Miramaxers to handle acquisitions.

Which makes me ask a question: Who the hell would sell their film to the Weinstein Company?

I mean, sure, they managed to talk someone into giving them some money for acquisitions, but let's remember what they do with the films that they acquire.

NOTHING!

The bulk of their acquisitions end up either gathering dust on a shelf, used to prop up the wobbly leg on Harvey's desk, or dumped in the DVD discount bin. The days when they would hustle these sorts of films to make money are long over. They acquire films solely to keep those who might actually do things with them from getting them.

Then you add their rep for grinding young filmmakers into a fine paste, and you just have to wonder, why anyone would want to get into business with them.

They're the NBC of independent cinema.

Damn it! I promised not to mention NBC this post!

Well, I promise not to do it again.

SUMMIT MAKES A PUSH INTO TV

Summit Entertainment has given the green-light to a television series based on their movie Push.

Why?

Let's look at the facts.

Push, a flick rehashing the plot from Firestarter about telepaths fleeing and fighting a sneaky government agency, made about $50 mil in combined global box office on a $38 mil budget. However, that's not enough to cover production and the Prints & Advertising costs, and when you take into account some of the complications of international distribution it probably lost a lot more than that.

Neither was the film critically acclaimed, rating 23% at Rotten Tomatoes.

So why try to make it into a TV series?

Well there are two possibilities.

1. Someone made a series pitch that took the fundamental concept into wild new dramatic directions, like how much the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series differed from the more farcical original movie.

or

2. Jeff Zucker thought it would be a great replacement for the Jay Leno Show.

Damn it! I did it again! What the hell is wrong with me today?

Anyway, let's move on...

CAN MEL GIBSON BE FORGIVEN?

Mel Gibson's making a bit of a comeback as an actor, with a new movie coming out and all, but some folks don't care for it. Look at the comments at this Nikki Finke post, and you can see that there's still some folks giving Mel the old stink-eye.

For those who think the Jersey Shore is relevant, I'll bring you up to speed on the issue. First Mel directed a film called The Passion of the Christ. Some criticized the film as Anti-Semitic, because despite having a Jewish lead character, an angry mob of Jews calls for that lead character's execution by the Romans.

Mel tossed gas into that fire by getting pulled over while driving drunk and engaging in a liquor fueled rant about how "The Jews" start all the wars in the world.

He also called the arresting officer "sugar-tits."

Now Mel's spent some time in the Hollywood wilderness, in which his marriage fell apart, and he started a new relationship with a much younger woman, and you know that is not going to end well, they never do.

Now that Mel's on the cusp of a comeback, some folks are saying that Hollywood should deny Mel forgiveness for his drunken rantings.

Personally, I think Mel was acting like a total asshole, and should be mocked royally for being an asshole, but I have to put his sin in perspective with past sins that Hollywood has forgiven.

Let's look at this extremely incomplete list:

• Roman Polanski had non-consensual sex with a 13 year old girl.
• Rob Lowe had 3-way with another guy and a 16 year old girl, and videotaped it, making him officially a child pornographer.
• Charlie Chaplin couldn't say no to any underage girls.
• Pee Wee Herman got caught spanking the monkey in a porno theater.
• Countless actors have been busted for drugs, drunk driving, and other acts of reckless endangerment at themselves and others.
• Woody Allen married his step-daughter. Not necessarily illegal, but definitely creepy.
• Countless other actors engaged in spousal abuse.
• And let's not forget producer Walter Wanger. He actually SHOT A MAN and resumed his career as a movie producer little more than a year later.

Compared to that list Mel's sin seems more venal than mortal.

His attitude was piggish, obnoxious, and apparently only acceptable in certain circles of academia, but he hasn't actually done anything physical against Jewish people. He hasn't assaulted or shot anyone over their religion, so I say that his punishment should fit his crime.

So I say let Mel make movies.

Then let's make fun of him.

Verbal crime, gets a verbal punishment.

Humiliation can be very educational in the area of piggish attitudes.

Hey, I made it though this piece without referring to NBC!

Wait, I just referred to NBC!

Damn it!

Hollywood Babble On & On #401: Miscellaneous Movie/Media Musings...

Welcome to the show folks...

1. NEW MOON HAS BITE, BUT DOES IT HAVE LEGS?

New Moon, the second installment of the Twilight Saga has the folks at the Summit Entertainment head office dancing with a record breaking first night and a near record weekend take of $142 million.

Well, good for them, invest the money wisely, and put it to smart use, because this might not last.

Sure, legions of "Twihards" camped out in front of theaters from Kalamazoo to Kathmandu to catch the opening night screenings, but such hysteria is a double edged sword.

To bastardize Cole Porter, it's all just too hot not to cool down.

We're talking about teenage girls, sure when they love something it's with a fanatical fervor that can change pop culture, and make an otherwise struggling indie distributor an industry powerhouse.

But they can also change direction sharper than the Flash on a meth buzz, and when they do, they look at what once inspired love and hysteria, and see it as an embarrassment that they don't want anything to do with again.

It's actually easier with male audiences. When they catch on to a movie franchise when they're young, they tend to stick with it. Even when it becomes as limp as the last Star Wars franchise, or as crotchety as the Indiana Jones comeback. This comes less from fanatical devotion, than from the simple fact that once a man tastes something they like, they want the full meal, or they'll feel they're missing out on something. And even if they now consider what they liked before embarrassing, they'll still buy into it, if only for the camp value.

Girls are different, when their tastes change, it changes for good, and woe betide those who are expecting it to last forever.

So I'll repeat my advice to Summit, bank your money, and invest it wisely, because you don't want to end up like all those other indies who rode a trend to the top, and then into oblivion.

2. ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND

Apparently the New Moon is a good time for harvesting sour grapes, as director Chris Weitz says that the failure of The Golden Compass, the fantasy epic that sank New Line was not his fault, but the fault of New Line Cinema. Apparently they took the film away in the editing suite and chopped out 30 minutes that took away the film's "edginess."

Really?

Well, let's look at the facts behind the failure of The Golden Compass, and who is to blame for what:

-The movie cost $180 million. That's a hell of a lot, and it doesn't cover the prints and advertising costs, which was at least another $100 million. That's a hell of a lot of risk for adapting a controversial kids book.

Blame: New Line for green-lighting a film that risky, in their eagerness for a Lord of the Rings replacement, and Weitz for spending it.

-The "edginess" the Weitz says was lost in the editing room basically meant more emphasis on the whole saga being about a little girl out to save the Universe by killing the Judeo-Christian God. American audiences don't like to pay to see movies telling them that their spiritual beliefs are inherently evil.

Blame: New Line for buying the book without knowing what they were getting into, Author Phillip Pullman for hyping the militant atheism of the story at the time of the film's release, and Weitz for thinking that more atheism will somehow win the hearts a predominantly Christian US audience.

-Making the film's success completely dependent on the US audience because they pre-sold all the foreign rights to cover budget overages.

Blame: New Line for pre-selling the foreign rights, Weitz for going over budget.

-Releasing an anti-religious film AT CHRISTMAS TIME while the original book's author is on every channel bashing religion, Christianity in particular.

Blame: New Line and Phillip Pullman.

So by my reckoning, New Line gets about 50% of the blame, Weitz gets 40%, and Phillip Pullman gets about 10%.

So you see there's plenty of blame to go around.

Hollywood Babble On & On #383: A Li'l Sumtin Fer Summit

Welcome to the show folks...

Yesterday I wrote about Summit going on a possible shopping spree for film libraries, and weighed the pros and cons of different ones. (Click HERE and scroll past Polanski) Today, I'm going to talk a little bit about Summit, its money situation, and what it can do with that money.

Right now Summit is swimming with cash. A certain little movie named Twilight that all the other studios passed on, made literally shit-loads of money, hence the reports of corporate sized shopping sprees.

I'd like to take a moment to give a little advice to Summit Entertainment, ahem....

STOP!

There.

Now I think I should explain things a little.

1. Twilight was big, and the odds are pretty good that the sequel will do big box office as well. But, and this is a massive, Michael Moore sized but, Twilight is finite. It's target demographic are teenage and tween girls who are dim enough to think that an undead creature that sucks blood from the innocent is some sort of romantic ideal. Girls like that are notoriously finicky. All it takes is Robert Pattinson discovering the wonders of bathing, and the whole will go from hot stuff to gross faster than you can say "flash in the pan." Suddenly that seemingly never-ending spring of money will dry up, leaving nothing but dust, and a bunch of DVDs collecting such dust at the bottom of the discount bin.

2. Summit's box office record sans vampires isn't exactly stellar, with only one film coming within $25 million of that $100 million domestic box office milestone, and most failing to reach even half that. That's not healthy.

So what can Summit do?

Well, it can follow my rules for "New Independents" which I will reiterate here:

1. DON'T DO WHAT THE MAJORS ARE DOING, DO WHAT THEY ARE NOT DOING.

That shouldn't need explanation, but since I'm a blowhard-know-it-all in love with the sound of my own voice, I'll do it anyway. Big studio movies follow extremely narrow patterns aimed at extremely narrow demographics. Look not at the films that they are making, but the ones that they are not making. There are parts where what the audience wants, and what the studios are making do not overlap. Fill those gaps yourself.

2. DON'T WASTE MONEY ON MAKING YOUR FILMS.

Not every film will be another Twilight, but you should know that already. Be thrifty, and wise, but not stingy. Money will not make a bad story good, but it can make a good movie a hit, so use your head, and your instinct.

3. EMBRACE THE AUDIENCE.

To anyone who lives outside of the bubble of the Axis of Ego, Hollywood looks and acts like an alien culture. Often entertaining, but alien nonetheless. This is where the gaps are, so get to know the average moviegoer, their hopes, their dreams, and most important, what they want to see on the screen. And don't just rely on market research firms, I have a beef with them.

4. AVOID THE BLOCKBUSTER MONEY TRAP.

This is part of being thrifty. Pursuing box office records is a trap that can crush your company. Pick your battles carefully, and be strategically smart. Lew Wasserman was given the option of opening Jaws in a then unheard of 800 theatres. He said "Open in 600!" Why? It wasn't just to save money on prints, Wasserman wanted long lines getting on the news and spreading buzz. That's called strategy.

5. EMBRACE NEW TECHNOLOGY BUT DON'T LET IT HYPNOTIZE YOU.

The means of production have never been more affordable, but don't think that some slick camerawork or CGI will turn a flop into a hit. That takes talent.

6. FORGET ABOUT THE STAR SYSTEM.

Most stars aren't worth the money. Ashton Kutcher may have a lot of followers on Twitter, but when it comes to movies and TV shows, his record is more shitter than twitter.

7. FORGET ABOUT WINNING HOLLYWOOD.

As long as you are not a major studio you will always be treated like Hollywood's country bumpkin cousin. So forget about them, get the audience on your side, and you won't need them, but they will need you.

8. TREAT INVESTORS AS INVESTORS, NOT SUCKERS.

Too many businesses in Hollywood run like fly-by-night ponzi schemes. Make your company a safe harbour, and investors will come.

9. MAKE DECISIONS WITH YOUR BRAIN, NOT YOUR EGO.

Your shit does stink, and not every idea you have will be a winner. Look at every decision from a logic based viewpoint, not a viewpoint based on the concept of "I'm great dammit!"

10. SEEKING AWARDS CAN ONLY LEAD TO SUFFERING.

The Weinstein Co. is currently on your radar for a takeover. There's a reason for that. It's because they alienated the audience, and chased after the approval of Hollywood through awards, over the approval of the audience through box office receipts. Forget awards, they are mostly meaningless these days. The audience is your king.

I hope this helps, because you don't want to end up like so many other companies before you.

Hollywood Babble On & On #382: Wanted & Desired In 2 Ways

Welcome to the show folks...

1. SOMETIMES YOU DON'T DO WHAT THE ROMANS DO...

Film director Roman Polanski was pinched in Zurich, and not in a good way. He was arrested and is looking at extradition over his conviction for sharing drugs and having sex with a 13 year old girl in 1977. Now Hollywood has risen to his defense, telling the press that 30+ years of award winning, luxury in Europe is punishment enough, and that he should be let go, sparking waves of disgust among the great unwashed known as the rest of the population.

This is a classic case of Hollywood not knowing how to pick its battles.

Sure, Polanski felt screwed over by a glory-hogging judge, and that's why he fled, but Hollywood seems to have forgotten that HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL.

The details don't matter, what he did was a crime, and no matter what Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Brett Ratner, or anyone else says matters. He committed a crime, he plead guilty and then he skipped out on the punishment. He had smart lawyers, and he could have beat that judge that wanted him deported, but he chose to run to Europe. Which is ironically, what the judge wanted anyway.

There's a reason behind Hollywood closing ranks around a man described by many as a child rapist. Hollywood has a very strong "Us VS Them" attitude, with the "Them" being "You" in the general public. You buy the tabloids that invade their privacy, You read the gossip blogs that expose their every nose-pick and cellulite dappled thigh, and You also make their careers possible, but that little tid-bit usually gets forgotten.

There's also an attitude that taboos are bad, and those who break them are not to be punished, especially if that taboo involves sex or sexuality. Now there are very hard and fast rules to who gets that sort of "get out of shit free" card. You have to be rich, famous, considered an "artistic" over "commercial" in your work, and not do anything that may be construed as racist, oppressive, or seen as supporting a unfashionable political stance.

Polanski fits all those rules, he is a very talented filmmaker, with a lot great movies under his belt, so Hollywood gives him a pass. To them statutory rape is merely a footnote, because they want to judge him by his art, and not by what he's done in the real world.

I say that Polanski should stop fighting extradition, return to the United States, and finally end this. Not only for himself, but for the girl, now a mature woman, in the centre of this mess. The Los Angeles County D.A. is not going to stop hounding either of them until a judge puts a ribbon on it.

Besides, Polanski should remember that this is the Los Angeles DA he's dealing with here. They only celebrity they were able to convict was Phil Spector, he was literally standing over the body, and even then they had to try him twice to get that conviction.

2. SUMMIT PLANS TO KEEP CLIMBING

Summit Entertainment, flush with cash from those teen-vampire love movies, is sniffing around Hollywood looking to start buying other companies or their libraries. So let's take a look at what's possible...

MGM/UA

PROS- The MGM/UA film library, despite missing most of the "Golden Age" MGM movies, is still worth a truckload of money, and the revenue from it is the only thing keeping the company afloat. There's also the Bond franchise to consider, which is going great guns lately.

CONS- The company is literally BILLIONS IN DEBT. Anyone looking to buy either the company, or the library will be expected to either take on that debt, or pay it off, and then some. Thus possibly putting it out of reach without accruing the sort of crippling debt that currently killing MGM.

THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY

PROS- There are a few critically acclaimed films in the library, including some Oscar winners, and with company coming apart faster than a sand-castle in a hurricane, they can be obtained for a good price.

CONS- There are way more jokers than aces in this deck, a lot more. Then there are all the films that were buried until all interest was lost and they were forgotten. Then there's Harvey and Bob, and they won't let go without a costly fight.

LIONSGATE

PROS- It's got some hit movies and cult classics in its library, and the company's been in a little slump lately.

CONS- Lionsgate is only in a little slump. It's not collapsing like TWC, and could recover very quickly and become very expensive, if the management makes the right moves. It's stock is already on the rise, and there are other sharks circling it.

So, we're going to have to keep our eyes on this one to see what pops up.