Posts Tagged ‘Warner Bros.’

With so many bombs like "The Green Hornet" trying to sell 3D (converted no less), which don't even warrant a normally priced ticket, why should we not still consider 3D to be a money-grabbing gimmick that doesn't add enough to the viewing experience to justify the higher ticket price?

Dear Hollywood,

Please stop pushing 3D.

The Hollywood Reporter has revealed that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has underachieved in terms of earning first weekend grosses for 3D showings, with more audiences opting for 2D prints. Now, with $90.1 million earned its first weekend in just the U.S., and over $400 million to be earned worldwide by the end of its first full week, the film can hardly be considered unsuccessful. However, numbers show that American audiences’ interest in 3D could be waning. What everyone is trying to figure out is whether fewer 3D tickets sold means audiences are no longer seeing the value in 3D technology or they are becoming less inclined to fork over the extra cash for a 3D ticket.

Guess what Hollywood – if Americans are indeed sick of 3D it’s because of both reasons.

The list of recent movies released in 3D where the extra dimension actually added to the viewing experience is extremely short, including only Avatar, Tron: Legacy, How to Train Your Dragon, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Coraline, and Monster House. Notice how four of those six are 100% animated, and the two “live action” films are ones which were greatly reliant on digital effects to the point where one could justifiably consider them mostly animated as well. This is not a coincidence, and such a pattern does not help the argument that 3D is the future of the medium. Personally, I won’t give that claim any consideration until I see a truly live action film wow me like the six just mentioned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly's "Cyrus" has been one of the recent indie successes

According to Pamela McClintock of Variety.com the “specialty sector”, or independent film market, has received a recent boost in box-office grosses thanks to releases like Mark and Jay Duplass’ Cyrus starring Jonah Hill, John C. Reilly, Marisa Tomei, and Catherine Keener, a documentary that follows the raising of several children from all over the world titled Babies, as we as several others.

President of Fox Searchlight Steve Gilula says that the recent (relative) success of these independent films are indicative that there “is life in the [indie] market, even as audiences are being more selective.” Some other examples of these films include City Island, Exit Through the Gift Shop, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

These indie successes hope to continue their theatrical and VOD runs, because as with any film the longer the run the more money they make. However, with word of mouth being the primary propellant of their runs such success is almost completely reliant on audience buzz, which is means these films’ futures are harder to predict than most.

One aspect that’s being tentatively attributed to these films’ financial achievements is how there are fewer large-market films being released during the Spring and early Summer months. Also consider the recent Warner Bros. flop Jonah Hex, for example, and it can be said that independent films have had less competition than usual.

The momentum that the “specialty sector” is building right now will be important for the current releases in creating Oscar buzz come Fall and Winter, as well as help later indie releases like Bill Murray and Robert Duvall’s Get Low, which will open July 30th, to do the same by holding the attention of audiences who may become distracted by bigger films such as Inception, Predators, Twilight: Eclipse, Salt, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and Tron.

Source: Variety

It’s a question that’s plagued me for a while now: whatever happened to big Hollywood movie musicals?  Movie genres typically go through cycles of popularity and I think we’re due for another round of flashy, dance-filled musicals.

Busby Berkley's kaleidoscopic dance numbers, like this one in "Footlight Parade" (1933), helped make American musicals world famous

Musicals have been a long-enduring genre since the early days of film.  In fact, the very first sound film was a musical—1927’s The Jazz Singer.  When it became a runaway success, studios rushed to create more musicals, some of which became the beginnings of a series.  Warner Brothers’ triumph with The Gold Diggers of Broadway led to The Gold Diggers of 1933, which became one of the most celebrated musicals of all time thanks in large part to Busby Berkeley’s intricate choreography.  RKO Radio Pictures first paired dancers Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers—who danced together in nine films—in 1933 in Flying Down to Rio, creating arguably the most famous dancing couple in film history.  Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer released The Broadway Melody in 1929, which not only started a series but also won the Academy Award for Best Picture.  As time went on, production companies made more and more musicals until the genre reached its greatest popularity in the 1940’s and ‘50s.

Though many studios made musicals during that time, MGM arguably became the company most associated with producing expensive, opulent and immensely successful musicals.  They produced Easter Parade, Summer Stock, An American in Paris, Singin’ in the Rain, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Guys and Dolls, as well as numerous others.  Those films were a mixture of song and dance and while they weren’t exactly realistic, they were always entertaining. MGM musicals have always been my favorites and when I think of the kind of musicals I’d love to see now, I imagine huge productions with the same glamour and spectacle as MGM’s greatest musicals.  I’m talking musicals with big, expensive set pieces and extended dance sequences with dancers wearing costumes of every conceivable color.  I’m talking great songs that not only convey exactly what the character feels, but are also catchy and make the audience want to sing along.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hollywood Video already filed for bankruptcy, and all the signs indicate that Blockbuster will be next

In an editorial for IGN.com, writer Cindy White examines the unenviable situation that video stores are in with having to compete with elements like Netflix, Hollywood studios, new customer standards, and age. White pays particular attention to Blockbuster Inc., which at one time was the lone video rental giant but is currently staring down the proverbial barrel of the Chapter 11 gun.

The CEO of Blockbuster, Jim Keyes, recently spoke to the L.A. Times and suggested that what Netflix doesn’t provide his company does, which is the immediate availability of new releases. What perhaps Keyes fails to understand about the renting market is that people who wish to rent movies are more interested in renting what they want from a greater selection than  catching up on what the industry has recently pumped out. Mainstream video stores have never been famous for their wide selections, and charging per-movie viewing fees from their online collection is probably not the way to compete with Netflix’s offering of unlimited online viewings for subscribers.

What White eventually concludes is that Blockbuster is holding on to the past, and that is why they are failing. The company recently signed an agreement with Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and Universal which will allow them to show all new DVD releases from these studios without having to wait the 28 day window that Netflix and Redbox must. This gives them a leg up by having the most updated selection, but Netflix in particular agreed to the delay in exchange for a greater selection for online viewing. All of Blockbuster’s moves to fend off bankruptcy indicate that it’s thinking more about the present, while Netflix is clearly thinking about the future.

By the end of her article White comes to the same conclusion that most have, which is that Blockbuster is simply delaying the inevitable. She claims that despite the company’s best efforts so far, it’s quickly heading towards irrelevancy. Mind you not all video rental stores are as doomed as Blockbuster. The business that once nearly had the video rental market cornered is simply proving that without proper management and a sharp eye on the horizon no company is big enough to survive the changing of the times; And you best believe it, the times they are a changin’.

Quick Opinion: Though the article hardly goes into much detail, the point is well made that in the video rental market the tides are changing and Blockbuster is being left behind. What stinks even more for the company is that even though they reportedly signed with the three big studios to make sure they are allowed to rent new DVD releases the possibility still exists that those same studios will eventually forbid rental companies from renting out new releases in order to raise actual DVD sales. In many cases studios get more money from DVD sales than theater grosses, but because DVD sales on the whole have been dipping slightly over the past year they’re trying everything to get them to go back up. If a buy-only period comes to pass, Blockbuster will lose its only redeeming quality with customers. Such a loss would be the final nail in the coffin, assuming Blockbuster stays alive long enough to see the day that happens. The company’s main downfall has been its lack of quality service (it reinstated late fees), higher prices, and limited selection. In other words, it failed to meet the demands of the market. My guess as to why this is the case is probably the same as yours in that the suits who ran the company probably felt so empowered by their success at the height of the rental store era (1999 or so) that it didn’t take competitors like Netflix seriously. Would’a, could’a, should’a.

The online video rental giant Netflix has grown even stronger

After signing new, separate deals, Netflix will have access to more 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios‘ films. Under their new deals, Neflix will agree to wait 28 days after any of their films release on DVD to offer them through their website. Also, Universal agreed to license more of their films for streaming (online viewing) and Fox has agreed to a first-time license that will allow Netflix to stream certain Fox TV shows.

Netflix also made a similar 28 day delay deal for new releases with Warner Bros. earlier this year.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said in October studios were wrestling with declining DVD sales as the rental market has been modestly growing and that some studios are considering introducing a DVD retail sales-only window for a few weeks. – Hollywood Reporter

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: The 28 day delay deals certainly make sense for the studios, particularly 20th Century Fox because they own the distribution rights to James Cameron’s Avatar (which in case you’ve been living under a rock has become the most successful film in history). Having that 28 day window will allow the studio to grab all the money they can from those who don’t wish to wait 28 extra days to rent the movie – and you can bet that will be a lot of people. On the flip side, Netflix’s side of the deals only make sense because they’re getting something in return, and good enough for them it’s something that will actually improve their profits. With more streaming movies and wider selections the company will have an even firmer grasp on the video renting market. And, even though they have 28 day delays for the 3 biggest Hollywood studios, they don’t have to wait that long to make every new DVD available, as they can still provide newly released DVDs from everyone else.

What is discouraging about the last bit of news is this: With the rental market slowly rising and DVD sales somewhat declining, is there any reason to assume that this is not because of the current recession? With less money to play with, of course people are going to forgo spending $20+ on a new DVD and spend $5, $6 or $7 on a rental instead. It’s smart consumerism, especially if you’re not head over heals for a particular movie or haven’t seen it before (regardless of what some people might think there are some people who have yet to see Avatar, so why should studios expect people who haven’t seen it to spend $20+ to own it?). If the studios decide to make up for their losses with DVD sales by creating a sales-only window after releases there could possibly be some serious consequences. Ma and Pa video stores, already barely getting by (as the switch from VHS to DVD nearly wiped them out as it is), would no longer be able to provide their hottest commodity, which is new releases. Most of these stores at this point get by through offering great selections and immediate service (as opposed to Netflix’s 2 to 3 days wait period), but any more hits to this small market and I fear they’ll start disappearing for good. Creating a sales-only window might help studios beat the current lull in DVD sales, but the lull is only temporary and the window’s possible effects could be permanent. It would be a step towards getting rid of all video rental stores period instead of just the one rental giant Blockbuster, which looks like it will soon file for Chapter 11.

Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. are teaming up to produce another entry to the Godzilla library, and hope to release it sometime in 2012.

“Godzilla is one of the world’s most powerful pop culture icons, and we at Legendary are thrilled to be able to create a modern epic based on this long-loved Toho franchise,” said Thomas Tull, chairman and CEO of Legendary. “Our plans are to produce the Godzilla that we, as fans, would want to see. We intend to do justice to those essential elements that have allowed this character to remain as pop culturally relevant for as long as it has.”

… Added Jeff Robinov, president of Warner Bros. Pictures Group, “Godzilla is emblematic of the kind of branded, event films for which Warner Bros. and our partners at Legendary are best known.” – Hollywood Reporter

The films Robinov is referring to are such films as Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Superman Returns, and the soon to release Clash of the Titans.

Nothing is known about the possible plot at this point, as things have yet to reach any sort of pre-production. Dan Lin (Sherlock Holmes), Roy Lee (The Strangers, Quarantine), and Brian Rogers are producing.

Sources: Hollywood Reporter, ComingSoon.net

Quick Opinion: It will be curious to see whether Legendary and Warner Bros. will try to seriously revive the Godzilla brand in the United States (where its popularity has been demoted to cult status) like they did for Batman and tried to do for Superman, or if they will make it a self-aware romp that pokes fun at itself. The 1998 Godzilla directed by Roland Emerich made close to $400 million worldwide despite terrible reviews, so even if they model the next film after it perhaps they feel the monster is still popular enough to enjoy the same type of success. I have my doubts, though.  

Zoe Saldana ("Avatar," "Star Trek") in Warner Bros.' "The Losers" - Opens April 23rd

IGN.com published a set visit article yesterday about their trip to Puerto Rico where Warner Bros. is currently filming The Losers, based on the Vertigo graphic novels of the same name. The high-octane action film is being directed by Sylvain White (Stomp the Yard) and stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Watchmen), Zoe Saldana (Avatar), and Chris Evans (Sunshine).

The story is about a former CIA black ops team that got double-crossed and tries to get revenge. The part of that story that IGN walked in on is the ending, which according to the article will supposedly entail a plethora of gunfire (naturally). Grasping the tone and style of the film was not easy for some of those involved, apparently because the story mixes moments of sincere drama with one-liners and gags. Chris Evans explains how he first reacted to the script.

“I just knew that Peter Berg wrote it, it was Warner Bros., it was a war-type movie,” Evans recalls. “And by page 20 I was a little confused as to what they were going for. Because there were a lot of jokes. There were times of high drama, shootouts and someone’s cracking a line. And I said, ‘What is this?’ Because I think nowadays we want … Bourne Identity . You want very raw, very real, very authentic stuff. And the days of the Die Hards and Lethal Weapons, those movies where there was room for some humor, you don’t see a lot of them. So I put the script down on page 30 and I called my agent and I said, ‘What is this? What am I missing? I’ve got to go back and start over and get the right tone in my head. I’m not thinking clearly on it.’ And he said, ‘This is Joel Silver. It’s based on a graphic novel. Why don’t you read the graphic novel first, then crack the script?’ So I went back and started over and it made a whole lot more sense. And I really, actually thought, ‘You know what? There’s room for this.’” – movies.IGN.com

The article as a whole provides a number of details, none of which would likely be considered spoiling. Those details, though, are mostly on the level of tidbits, failing to indicate much besides how difficult it is to shoot an action movie. As someone who still has yet to look into the graphic novel series, a rudimentary exploration into any of the characters or discussion with the director about what he’s aiming to accomplish would have helped. Besides these shortcomings it should prove to be an interesting read for those anticipating the release of The Losers, which opens April 23rd.

"Superman Returns," although successful, was not nearly successful enough to please Warner Bros.

David Goyer, who helped write Batman Begins and The Dark Knight with Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, is in negotiations with Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures to pen the script to the next Superman movie. Goyer’s help in making the Batman brand so financially valuable is no doubt the reason behind the studios’ decision, but he is also recognized for his efforts with the Blade series.

Actor Brandon Routh and director Bryan Singer will not return due to Warner Bros.’ dissatisfaction with how much Superman Returns earned at the box office (costing about $270 million and grossing $391 million worldwide according to BoxOfficeMojo.com). Despite the film’s respectable totals they apparently thought that a character as iconic as Superman should have earned much better numbers.

Goyer’s pitch regarding the Superman script dealt with lots of action and battles with arch-nemesis Lex Luthor and super villain Brainiac, which must have appealed to both studios.

Warner Bros. is in kind of a hurry, as they must create a finished Superman film by 2013 because that is when their copyright on the character of Superman expires and all rights go to the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster.

Source: Variety

Quick Opinion: I’ve said this before with regards to Warner Bros. beef with Bryan Singer and I’ll say it again – the problem with Superman Returns‘ returns was not Singer’s fault. The character and brand, while certainly still iconic in the United States, is not nearly as popular outside of the U.S. because he was birthed from WWII patriotism. People around the world got behind Superman because what he stood for – in essence – was the might of the U.S. army and allying forces against the Nazi regime. Superman was pro-American justice and anti-tyranny. Such a character does not fit with modern America, who loves to root for the little guy (Spider-Man) and tortured soul (Batman). Anymore, Superman is thought of as being too powerful to like. Batman and Spider-Man, though special, are viewed to be more on the level of the everyman, which is a position that has been the most popular with superhero audiences since before 2006′s Superman Returns and continues to this day. The next Superman movie might earn more money because it will supposedly be more action-packed (attracting the large Transformers-type crowds), but if they invest the same amount that they did for Bryan Singer’s film they’ll be whining about returns again in 2014.

(For more elaboration on this topic, see Movie-Thoughts’ Deep Thoughts “A Different Look at ‘The Dark Knight.’” Comments on Superman being unfitting with modern times are near the end.)

Joel and Ethan Coen handle directing/producing duties arguably better than anyone

In an article for Variety.com, feature writer Anthony Kaufman sheds light on the world of filmmakers who decide/are able to both direct and produce their movies. People like Peter Jackson, Clint Eastwood, and the Coen brothers are members of an elite group that has won Oscars for both directing and producing, and accomplishing such a feat is even harder than one might think.

The two different, and arguably opposing functions of directors and producers is perhaps the number one reason for the high level of difficulty in doing both. It’s the job of the director to make sure the artistic quality of a film is the highest it can be, and the producer’s job is to manage and organize all aspects connected to a film’s financing. Being that art can be very costly, directors and producers naturally clash every so often during the making of a movie. And aside from this, the simple fact that one person is doing two jobs makes the endeavor daunting.

A positive way of looking at the added responsibility is to say that having to keep both art and practicality in mind while making all decisions is a very useful skill to have because it keeps either from getting out of hand. If a film’s artistic side is met with too few limitations it can make it appealing to too narrow an audience, while if the budget hampers the art’s ability to express itself sufficiently the overall quality of the product suffers.

Director Lee Daniels (Precious) sums up the job of director/producer like this: It’s “powerful, but a powerful curse.” Read more about the job of being a director/producer by clicking on the link below.

Source: Variety

In Other News…

Blake Lively

Gossip Girl and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants star Blake Lively has been cast in Warner Brothers’ Green Lantern. She will reportedly be the romantic interest opposite star Ryan Reynolds, who is playing the supernatural superhero.

Source: Hollywood Reporter