This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"It gets exponentially prefixy."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 22 November 2014




Tweet







March 16 2011

Now's your chance to buy a Whedon work - "Cabin in the Woods" up for sale. The new MGM heads are looking for a buyer for "Cabin in the Woods" (and the remake of "Red Dawn").

It's a very quick blurb down in the 14th paragraph. Here's a Whedon property that's actually available. Pass around the hat!

Note that if Red Dawn doesn't get a distributor, it will either go direct-to-DVD or be shelved. The article doesn't specifically state, but presumably this would be The Cabin in the Woods' fate as well?

Also, this pretty much skewers the earlier report that a possible distribution deal between MGM and Sony would include Red Dawn and Cabin.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-03-16 20:24 ]
Come on New Line Cinema - wouldn't you love to distribute a Joss Whedon film??!
I wonder if a fan-backed consortium could buy it.
Setting up Help Simon Buy The Cabin in the Woods right now!
I reckon you could get a return on your investment.
Paramount just hired Mary Parent...
If it doesn't end up working any left over money will be returned to any investors of Help Simon Buy The Cabin in the Woods, but we'll do what we can to make sure it doesn't come to that ;)
I have $5 and a Ho-Ho. Let's go to work.
By the way, I want to comment on the Red Dawn thing. Somebody MGM hired is quoted there as saying "The film itself was not a smart move." The whole idea of digitally changing the movie to hide everything about it is beyond stupid. It's like converting Cabin to 3D. MGM need to grow some balls and make their company about the stories.
Dang! This past weekend I gave all my extra money to the Japan fund at the Red Cross! If I had only known about this, I'm sure those starving and homeless people would've understood my choosing Simon and Joss over them. ;)
To be fair, it's the distributors MGM is talking to who are telling the studio they wouldn't be able to release the film as is. If MGM wants to sell this thing, they have to change it. Dumb, but there you go.
Somebody needs to get Reed Hastings on the phone! With all the news about Netflix dipping its toe into the content creation/ownership business, they might be the perfect folks to rescue Cabin in the Woods from obscurity and give it new life. Assuming, of course, that they'd be putting it up for theatrical release as well as Netflix streaming.
I'm not one of those people that views the original "Red Dawn" so nostalgically. It struck me as an idea that was barely worth doing once. Then the remake plot was poorly thought out, or more precisely it was poorly overseen by the management that is no longer in power at MGM.

Gossi, the new management had basically two choices: digitally change it or shelve it. They had no chance of making any money back on the company's investment if they shelved it. I read the digital changes as a sign that new management thinks they can make a profit off of it after all. We'll see.

I do hope Cabin finds a buyer.
Well, put it this way - horror comedy traditionally does poorly at the box office. Horror normally does well. Whoever distributes Cabin could arguably make more money by cutting all the jokes. Should they?
Nah, leave them in but redub them in Chinese. In fact digitally move the Cabin to China too. It's just good business (apparently).

Here's hoping someone buys it, man i'd hate for the film to be finished and just sitting there and no-one to ever see it.
gossi, it isn't about some general box office "does poorly" or "does well", it's about an entire -- and HUGE -- market the distributor would have to forego entirely if the enemy were Chinese.
Assuming it's one of the 20-ish non-Chinese films allowed to play in cinemas there for whichever year it finally comes out.
If it doesn't end up working any left over money will be returned to any investors of Help Simon Buy The Cabin in the Woods,...

I think any left over money should go to a Whedonesque time share in the Alps - or possibly someplace tropical, depending on whatever the consensus is.
Stupid "lets hold off on releasing the movie on time and let's make it 3D" mentality. Had they foregone that everyone would be happy right now.
Assuming it's one of the 20-ish non-Chinese films allowed to play in cinemas there for whichever year it finally comes out.

I guess I'm just sort of assuming that major film distributors have a better handle on global movie markets than Whedonesque posters. ;)

(And, again, I'm not taking some sort of moral stance in favor of the move. Just trying to keep an eye on what it is and not what it isn't.)

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-03-16 21:22 ]
I'm surprised to hear that horror-comedies don't do good box office... the first ones that come to mind are "Scream" and "Shaun of the Dead," both of which I thought did fairly well...? Then again, my knowledge is far from encyclopedic on the subject.
The Goose, that was MGM's excuse for not releasing the film. It wasn't the real reason. They did not have the money to release it. Simple outright lack of cash flow is the reason Cabin wasn't released in 2010. It was never converted to 3D and I doubt it was even seriously considered.

miri47, Scream and it's sequels all did very well at the box office. Shaun of the Dead bombed. Worse than Serenity bombed.

[ edited by IrrationaliTV on 2011-03-16 21:28 ]
It was considered. They ran 3D conversion tests. The movie's creative folk found them, shall we say, bad. Here endeth the total extent of any useful insider info I have on that count.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-03-16 21:30 ]
It should also be noted, as the article does, that the issue is seen as being not just about a single film (talking here of Red Dawn, obviously), but about an ongoing relationship with the Chinese market. Again, not taking a moral position in favor of the changes; but this is how the studio and distributors see it. MGM at this point either junks the film or finds a way to get someone to distribute it. Sucks, but there you go.
I guess I'm just sort of assuming that major film distributors have a better handle on global movie markets than Whedonesque posters. ;)

Madness ! Personally i'd assume they also don't know if the altered film will make the list, they just know that an unaltered one definitely won't. China seem pretty sensitive though, apparently 'The Dark Knight' was banned because of the crooked Chinese accountant and corrupt Hong Kong police (both of which elements i'd forgotten despite having seen it a few times) so the still extant mentions of China being involved in 'Red Dawn' may be enough anyway (I mean, are they gonna go "Oh, so we're in the evil coalition but we're not leading it ? Well, that's OK then" ? Maybe I guess).

'Shaun of the Dead' grossed around $30 million on a reputed $4-5 million budget (it came close to recouping its production budget during its opening weekend in the US alone) so it didn't bomb. Maybe not 'Saw' numbers but pretty healthy (and that's not including DVD, TV etc.).
I get the biz logic, but changing it to Korea 'cos they have less influence/money? Fuck that, I say. If MGM don't have the balls, they shouldn't even be in the market. They aren't making a documentary here. They're making a Hollywood action film.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Never occurred to me that MGM would try and use the 3D angle as a backdoor excuse to the public.

Still hoping that it comes out to DVD.

So the question is can Simon or hell, Joss and Co., get this to DVD/streaming realistically?
I don't know if I can put much stock in that $5M budget number, Saje. I guess it could be right but, a single episode of a hit TV show can cost more than that (in the US anyway) and the marketing budgeting had to at least double that number. I'm sure you'll find something to prove I'm wrong.
Horror Comedy. Think Zombieland. They can do just fine at box office.
IrrationaliTV, the way you put that makes pointing out errors of fact sound like a personal attack. I don't mean it to be nasty, you just made a statement that didn't jibe with what I remembered so I googled it. That's still OK here right ?

Fuck me, I feel like i've offended about 20 people on here and i'm not really sure when/how. Anyone who cares to feel free to drop me an email on the subject.
I would definitely chip in as much money as I could pull together to help buy Cabin in the Woods. Is that actually a possible thing to do? I don't really know anything about how that would work. I honestly wouldn't even need my money back it would be worth it just to see the film.
Saje, I wasn't getting that vibe at all. It's okay ... relax. You're among friends.
Horror Comedy: they were some exceptions to the rule, but the rule is there for a reason. (And to be broken, by Cabin In The Wood, assuming they don't digitally remove the jokes and make it 4Dovision and then wonder why it sucked).

[ edited by gossi on 2011-03-16 22:27 ]
It has a whole extra D, how could it possibly suck ?

I would definitely chip in as much money as I could pull together to help buy Cabin in the Woods. Is that actually a possible thing to do?

Well, it's more possible than buying 'Firefly' since at least 'The Cabin in the Woods' has the not unimportant property of actually being up for sale.

But beyond that, not so much. I don't know much about film distribution but I know enough to know there's more to it than just "Hey world, here's a film, enjoy" ;).

Saje, I wasn't getting that vibe at all. It's okay ... relax. You're among friends.

Cheers blanetalk, that's very kind but there's more to the 'vibe' than this thread alone. Best kept off board though, as per the rules.
Nothing against a huge co-operative of fans buying the film, but will a huge co-operative of fans know what/be able to do something with once the purchase has been made?
gossi, the reason most horror comedies fail at box office is because it's actually one of the harder genres to pull off, and most of them aren't that good. That doesn't mean Cabin In The Woods isn't good, or even that it would be improved or have any more box office potential by editing out the jokes. That's bad logic.

It's also a false comparison to what's been done with Red Dawn.
That suggestion to buy the film was a joke. Just in case that's getting lost in the shuffle here.
Too late, it's all over Facebook. You've created a monster. Now we need a mecha-buy-'The Cabin in the Woods' to defeat it.
Bix, haven't we learned recently that people don't get that kind of joke! At least I think you may have put the genie back in the bottle before it got loose this time! LOL!
Damn, now I look dumb :s

I guess there is a limit to what Joss fans are willing to do afterall :p
It wasn't even my joke.
Oh yeah. Well, good catch anyway.
blanetalk, that's not 'the' reason. It's not all about quality. Slither was a relatively well reviewed film which bombed.
Oh, and just to point out, however well Shaun did at the box office in the US, it still made an impression, hence Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg making Scott Pilgrim and Paul respectively.

Something with the weight of an already established name, ie Joss Whedon, might make people/studios take notice a bit more. Might not see it for a while, but at the very least after next summer there'll be posters bragging 'From the Director of The Avengers' all over the place.

[ edited by iCoomber on 2011-03-16 22:50 ]
I thought part of Shaun of the Dead's relative success was the fact it was mostly done for UK audiences so it was sort of a fluke that it would play remotely well outside? (Granted I'm a huge Edgar Wright fan so I may be a bit blinded.)

Anyway, I thought that horror-comedies in general may not do exceptionally well but sometimes they're cult classics that become pretty well-known post-fact? I mean most of the Screams I thought were classic slasher movies, just the characters were marginally more aware of their situations. Lately I'm only coming up with Slither, Drag Me to Hell and... some other movie-- I didn't think they do nearly as well as more straight-forward attempts. (Granted there are so many of those that for every Paranormal Activity there's a... whatever that one was with the poster that looked like a barcode.)

As for Red Dawn, as an ill-informed Chinese-ish guy I sort of immediately found it a bit ridiculous since as of yet it's not exactly like a Cold War boogeyman nation when they own so much American debt. North Korea does practically seem crazy enough to do something as irrational as an invasion.

That said, I can't imagine why anyone would ever invade Spokane, which rather sucks (no offense to anyone who's lived here longer). It's like five hours in-land/from Seattle (four if you speed... Or even longer if you count the peninsula/coast instead) and I can't really make sense of the scale of this invasion then. (In the original with Russia and Cuba did they also decide to start in the northwest?)

Anyway, I'd sort of assume Cabin doesn't pose the same risk of getting shelved for political reasons, granted I have absolutely no idea what it's about still.
however well Shaun did at the box office in the US, it still made an impression, hence Edgar Wright ... making Scott Pilgrim

Which also bombed.
Slither's downfall was the bad promotional effort.

It's still false logic. Movies are altered in post production routinely; sometimes there are test screenings, then re-shoots and further editing. It could be that they do at some point determine to edit the jokes out of Cabin in the Woods so it's financially viable and can get distributed to a larger number of theaters. I'd rather see that happen than what's going on with Tucker & Dale vs Evil. I want to see the film, but mostly I want to see the film make a profit. This empowers the studio and in turn Joss. Plus, doesn't he get a percentage? And if they do that, then we can still hope for the 2 DVD Directors cut down the line.

But with Red Dawn, we are talking about a major motion picture about to be released by a company coming out of bankruptcy. Of course they have to do everything they can to make back their investment or cut their losses. This isn't an art house indie film. They can't afford to gamble.

And I don't even see that they are compromising any great principle by making these changes.

So, gossi, why the big emotional attachment to having the Chinese be the bad guys?
Let's all remember there are people behind hose pixels we are responding to. Tone is an iffy bastard, so err on the side of sweetness and light ;).

Also, it's incredibly sad that movie studios think people won't 'get' (and therefore aren't given the chance) movies that feature people wi a different accent. Also sad, the fact that there is a large audience for which this isn't wrong thinking.
My point is this: if you're making a movie called Red Dawn, you're making Red Dawn. Don't try and CGI the plot into another group of Asians 'cos they have less money.

MGM got into problems because they didn't have balls. I mean, they skipped out on Cabin and released 'Hot Tub Time Machine'. And then went bankrupt. And now they're trying to CGI-up Red Dawn into a different movie. Yeah. Not a great start.

[ edited by gossi on 2011-03-16 23:10 ]
I'm not saying Scott Plgrim didn't bomb, but Edgar Wright had made a big enough impression for studio execs to take a risk with him.

Either way, in regards to Cabin, I stick by my prediction that we'll have to wait and it will come out in a massive post-Avengers frenzy.
Is it really true for accents too zeitgeist (subtitles I get to some extent) ? But anyhoo, this is more about painting people as the baddies when they care enough to actually ban your film because of it (imagine if the English banned films on that basis - there's about a decade from American cinema we'd have completely missed over here ;). To me they should tell the story they want to tell but businessmen don't see it that way (for legitimate - albeit commercial - reasons).

however well Shaun did at the box office in the US, it still made an impression, hence Edgar Wright ... making Scott Pilgrim

Which also bombed.

The One True b!X | March 16, 22:58 CET


'Scott Pilgrim' actually did bomb, yep ($47 million off a reputed $60 million production budget). I thought it was great personally but folk're fickle.

Oh, and just to point out, however well Shaun did at the box office in the US, it still made an impression, hence Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg making Scott Pilgrim and Paul respectively.

Well, that could be more because of 'Hot Fuzz' (or maybe 'Hot Fuzz'/Shaun combined). 'Hot Fuzz' was a bonafide success, $80 million off a budget ranging from $8-16 million (varies more than the rumoured budget for Shaun BUT Edgar Wright has said in interview that the HF budget was double SotD, so whatever it was gives us another clue about that).
'Shaun of the Dead' was huge in the UK, for info. Edgar Wright is also an amazingly talented director. He's right up there with Joss for me. Smart guy, very visual, knows how to tell a yarn.
Sadly, it is for some, Saje, but accents make films (and TV) better in my world :).
Yep agreed, it's immediately more interesting. Course, it might become a lot less interesting once you start to watch but that's not the accent's fault ;).

Edgar Wright is also an amazingly talented director. He's right up there with Joss for me. Smart guy, very visual, knows how to tell a yarn.

True dat. His absence shows in 'Paul' IMO which was good but never quite clicked like the Wright/Pegg/Frost stuff does (still well worth seeing though).
Money trumps balls. MGM made the movie as-is with the intent of releasing it. Their financial situation means they have to take what deal they can get, and if buyers want it changed, it's either change or shelve. Balls have nothing to do with it at this point. Balls don't pay their bills.
They've probably already tried that (along with selling blood).
Yes, lets not blame accents for shoddy scripting. Also, re: balls to pay bills, i simply say: LOL!
Pfft. Tell great stories and people will give you money. That's my main thought on the matter. One of the Uni development people said they wouldn't actually make Goners 'cos it wasn't a sequel to something. My response: you're Univer-effing-versal.
The changes to the Red Dawn remake sound AWFUL. There is no way North Korea could ever invade the U.S. That is such a big joke the studio should consider listing this movie as a comedy.
Here's to the day when the uncensored version of Red Dawn gets leaked...


ETA: And maybe Cabin in the Woods will end up being to internet content providers what Start the Revolution Without Me was to VHS.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2011-03-16 23:27 ]
Pfft. Tell great stories and people will give you money. That's my main thought on the matter. One of the Uni development people said they wouldn't actually make Goners 'cos it wasn't a sequel to something. My response: you're Univer-effing-versal.

Who followed that advice by making Serenity, and got burned. ;)
Bah. They will have made their money back with Serenity by now. Not everything hits big. That movie deserved more people than it got.

We're living in an age where, if somebody pitched Buffy to MGM, it'd get made, then never released, then somebody would say 'you know what? we could release this if we CGI'd Buffy into a dude and made it 3D and streamed it to mobile phones too where viewers choose the endings!'. Screw that. There's both development hell and release hell here, and I'm a fan of neither.
It's the movie industry, emphasis on the industry rather than the movies. The people who make these decisions don't generally care about whether an audience will like a film, once you've paid to see a movie, they already have your money.

In terms of the sequel thing, pretty much all of Hollywood, specifically the summer releases, is geared towards 'Brand Recognition'. Basically, people won't take risks on spending that money to see a film they know nothing about, average Joe Public doesn't know anything about Cabin, and so will spend their money on something they do know, the latest sequel/remake/spin off.
Again, I don't see what principle is being broken here.

There was a movie called Red Dawn that was about the U.S.S.R., a communist nation, invading the United States.

To make a remake out of it, they changed the bad guys to China, another communist nation.

Now the bad guy is getting changed again to North Korea, another communist nation. Somehow this is an inherent bastardization of the original story?

gossi, I am chuckling a little bit about this.
Because they're changing the completely fictional story of an action movie purely on the possibility that they'll offend. Changing the focus to a country where they financially don't matter. I take issue with that. Serenity made a mismash of asian culture, because they merged - if that offended somebody, should they have CGI'ed it into Iraqi culture instead? Balls. Grow 'em, industry. I'm pretty sure China has 'em.
You think this is how a movie studio demonstrates they have "balls"; by determining that non-essential elements of a property that could be offensive to a significant part of your target audience should be left in, and to hell with whether it makes money? You're all alone in that opinion, I think.
To be fair here, there's absolutely no indication MGM had any intention of changing the film back when they were releasing it themselves. But with the bankruptcy, the recovery, and the need to find another company to distribute the film, MGM simply has no financial room to ignore the concerns of potential distributors, regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable any of us might find those concerns. As I said, balls have nothing to do with it. MGM can't release this film itself anymore. Whatever plans or intentions it had for it when they made it are irrelevant now.
Bix, stop trying to make sense, you sly minx!
To be fair in the other direction, this bizarre underlying premise of the interchangeable Asians really should be an argument in favor of just direct-to-DVD'ing this as it is and being done with it.
I will crawl out on a limb (I used to be a limb, so I'm comfortable with them) and predict that Cabin will find a buyer in a month (30 days, not 31) cuz horror movies are EZ money and give a Hallelujah that it will be shown in the number of Ds Joss and Drew intended and not in imita-D. I look forward to life confirming my expectations. It feels sweet and good.
You think this is how a movie studio demonstrates they have "balls"; by determining that non-essential elements of a property that could be offensive to a significant part of your target audience should be left in, and to hell with whether it makes money? You're all alone in that opinion, I think.

Well, I don't think you know what the planet thinks, nor what I think. I never said they should make less money. I actually think it's possible to make a film about something which offends a group and makes money. The Dark Knight got banned in China, and was one of the most profitable films of that year (and recent years full stop). If you tried to make a movie which doesn't offend somebody, you end up with High School Musical. Which is something I'm okay with, as it happens, but that's a very different movie than Red Dawn. MGM knew exactly what they were doing. They should try and find a distributor that shares the vision, or DVD it.
I didn't claim to know how the planet thinks. Or how anyone else thinks. But I have seen you pumping your discontent here and on Twitter and I don't see anyone else chiming in with you.

I don't see how these changes are a significant change in the artistic vision of the film, any more than changing the bad guys in Die Hard to redheads would have made a difference. They're just bad guys, you know?

And comparing the remake of a marginally profitable b-film to The Dark Knight is disingenuous and you know it.

I'm going to let you post some rebuttal and let you have the last word, because I get that this is some kind of important principle to you ... but I don't get it.
I don't see how these changes are a significant change in the artistic vision of the film, any more than changing the bad guys in Die Hard to redheads would have made a difference. They're just bad guys, you know?

Say - could you let me in on the secret about where I can watch this baby? That way I can make far-reaching authorative statements about its content too!

In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure this would make a significant change in the creative direction of the movie considering North Korea's pecking order on the potential world domination food-chain vs China's (or Canada's vs the US's for that matter - to be fair and all.)

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2011-03-17 01:37 ]
So uhm, just weighing; first thanks to Cabri for sending some love this way, we really need help over here. Although if I could, I would return your investment for this much worthier cause!

On the interchangeable Asians, I figured it was a response to current events. Russia was the Cold War/Bond ear. Iraq was the more recent war film, NKorea is the bankruptcy era, I guess. Apparently they don't feel it could be China. Or maybe they're just harking back to Team America? But either way, some country has to be evil and I don't think a couple of miles is gonna change much for a western audience.
I don't think pegging Canada as a bad guy in these films would fly though, it's mostly the accent, as zeitgeist mentioned above about accents, they just sound so wrong for a bad guy, eh?!
Although I could totally believe that gingers are evil...
On the interchangeable Asians, I figured it was a response to current events. Russia was the Cold War/Bond ear. Iraq was the more recent war film, NKorea is the bankruptcy era, I guess. Apparently they don't feel it could be China.

Well, no. Re-read the article. The entire point is that this is about potential distributors (since MGM can't release it on its own anymore) not wanting to burn bridges in the Chinese market. It's not a creatively or narratively driven change. It's a financially driven one.
Well that was sort of my really not clear point. If they're bankrupt then they want some country with money to spend. So trying not to confuse the original narrative too much and get some cash means that NKorea can fill in for China. Sorry, I'm a bit sleepy, it's a tad early! But i do get that point and NKorea are a handy target right now, so it all fits...
Alright, kids, let's simmer down a bit - I guarantee we can discuss this without getting all snippy.
It's not a creatively or narratively driven change. It's a financially driven one.

It is a pity, though, since - by my reading of the article - the point of this change is not actually to generate money on the distributor front for this particular film (seems pretty likely that hell's gonna freeze over before this one gets picked as one of China's "bland 20" whether the chief villainous state is shifted to its close national ally North Korea or not) but to hopefully generate goodwill towards getting potential future projects carried over there... sometime... eventually... yeah (help - I'm running out of elipses!)
@zeitgeist, was that snippy? Sorry, it was meant to agree with b!x's comment and just to clarify my own really vague one. No snip intended. Or was it the Canadians(in stereotype) can't make plausable villains? Or the ginger comment? Those were intended for humour.

[ edited by BlueSkies on 2011-03-17 03:36 ]
but to hopefully generate goodwill towards getting potential future projects carried over there

Granted. It's all pretty silly, as at this point MGM appears to have the choice either to release it to DVD (or shelve it) or to abide by weird market-driven distributor demands that aren't even directly about this movie.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-03-17 03:51 ]
But wouldn't a cinematic release get more finances? I mean direct to dvd remakes are hardly gonna bring in the cash, so doesn't it make sense to pander to the market for now in the hopes of generating money for the company? The film probably won't stand a chance either way, though.
Someone asked about the original Red Dawn location -- I've lost the original post, sorry - it was Colorado, not the Northwest.
Here's a Whedon property that's actually available. Pass around the hat!


I feel like I'm playing Monopoly and I get to buy a railroad with my fake money!
BlueSkies, I'm fairly certain Z was addressing the conversation a bit to the north of your comment and, more specifically, blanetalk's last word. With respect to which: please don't have a go at other members, using expressions like "pumping your discontent," OK? Thanks.
BlueSkies, a cinematic release has the potential of making more money but, it takes tens of millions of dollars to market and launch a movie in theaters. If the movie doesn't have the potential to break out and DOUBLE the production cost plus marketing/launch spend then it makes more sense to send it straight to DVD where the cash outlay would be very minimal for a modest return that would cut the losses already booked in the bankruptcy. It comes down to risk versus reward.
Straight to DVD already!

Really, I'd like the film to show in theaters and make as much money as possible. But enough with the waiting! Ready for the DVD now.
I don't understand film company red tape but couldn't Joss buy it?
Red tape wouldn't keep Joss from buying it. Money would.
Hysterically, the synopsis of The Cabin in the Woods on mgm.com is simply, "Five friends go to a remote cabin in the woods. Bad things happen."
Oh great, so there's 5 of them ? **SPOILERS** !
Oh, my only concern for Red Dawn is the benchmark it sets in the industry. If you start editing movies after they're shot to make more money and change the author intent, I vote bad thing. It has happened before, but never by CGIing different countries and races. It's the creep of money vs movie, and this is a line I believe they shouldn't cross. If MGM do, everybody will use it as an option.
Bah! They should just make the invaders robots from Neptune, then the only market you have to worry about is many years away...
Also, robots from Neptune actually are interchangeable with Chinese people because, little known fact, they all look exactly like Jackie Chan ('Drunken Master II' Jackie Chan NOT 'Police Story' Jackie Chan, that's more yer Saturnian robot invader).

And yep, it was right there and yet I didn't once mention invaders from Uranus. I think i've grown.

It's the creep of money vs movie, and this is a line I believe they shouldn't cross. If MGM do, everybody will use it as an option.

But as you say gossi, they already have crossed it. Aside from 3D 'Star Wars' and so on, what about product placement ? In a sense this is just product placement ("product" displacement ?) after the fact. As others have said BTW, that's not to defend it (I agree with you that it's not a good thing), just to point out that if it's crossing money vs movie Rubicons we're worried about then our feet have been wet for a while now.
Cabri, that movie was already made. It was Battle:L.A.

[ edited by eddy on 2011-03-17 11:16 ]
Saje: And yep, it was right there and yet I didn't once mention invaders from Uranus. I think i've grown.

It was definitely a struggle for me to skip over Uranus...

Eddy, lol, haven't seen it yet. I thought they were alien aliens, not alien robots? ;)
It was definitely a struggle for me to skip over Uranus...

Well it's so big right ? Not as big as it could be of course, if it was a gassy giant it'd be even harder to ignore.
BlueSkies, I'm fairly certain Z was addressing the conversation a bit to the north of your comment and, more specifically, blanetalk's last word. With respect to which: please don't have a go at other members, using expressions like "pumping your discontent," OK? Thanks. - SoddingNancyTribe

SoddingNancyTribe, I think Zeitgeist was gracefully addressing the overall tone of the conversation, which did get a little testy. I was partly to blame for escalating the emotional head of the conversation, and his advice was well taken by all involved, I think.

I'm a little surprised you pull this particular phrase out of the conversation ("pumping your discontent") and not some other more potentially offensive things that were said. I did not mean the word pumping as some sort of sexual euphemism, if that's the conclusion you've drawn (while other more obvious sexual euphemisms were used.) It was the most accurate shorthand I could think of for indicating someone was "distributing with force and emotion" a message in multiple locations which was not gaining alliance from other people in those venues.

I know that gossi is very well liked and respected here. I like and respect him as well - he is one of the key members whose comments I look to for viewpoint and clarity in the various posts I find of interest here. I never meant to be insulting to him, and he hasn't indicated he took insult. By nature of the fact that you found question with that phrase, I acknowledge that it's possible he was offended and just didn't mention it. If so, I apologize. It was never my intent to insult but just observe and comment.

To the conversation at hand, gossi's last comment actually clarified his position a bit for me, and I understand it. I may not agree, but that is immaterial. It's a valid criticism of the financial state of the art.
I don't think that he thought you meant it in a pejorative sexual manner, but rather a purely pejorative, blanetalk. Sometimes when things build and build, we reference only something that pops out as a tipping point post or phrase and sometimes we call out all involved, depending on how far things have gone. Normally we don't get all 'splain-y about moderation in comments, but as an example "Pumping your discontent" might come across as a blanket pejorative statement that seems to imply that it is a) gossi's most prominent or perhaps sole trait, b) that no one agrees with him and c) furthermore he might look into shutting up. Sometimes things don't come across as we intend, and we appreciate your follow up to say "Hey, that's not what I meant." Not intending to pick on you, there are certainly other comments in this thread that came across in a potentially bad way and could've been used as an example, just seizing on this one since it was mentioned.

Thanks for reining it in, all. If anyone wishes to discuss moderation/rules further, we do have a group g-mail address where you can reach us.
So, am I right in thinking that Mary's role with be producer at Paramount? Can you push to buy an already finished product as a producer? Sorry, limited understanding of the biz.
Hey, getting back to successful horror comedies, let's not forget the "Piranhas" remake! Lots of good fun (and boobies). I understand a sequel is in the works.
Mary has a production deal with Paramount under which (said the LA Times) "Paramount funds the overhead and development of projects in exchange for a first look at her company's movie ideas".
Apropos of nothing at all but me being nosey, don't you thing it's odd that The Cabin in the Woods website's metatag's contain not one mention of Joss Whedon? I just off-handedly checked to see if they had some new & interesting variations on his name, and they have numerous spellings of the movie's name, Buffy, Goddard & the various actors, but no mention of Joss.

I'm not suggesting that I have any idea that it means something significant, but: I find it peculiar, nonetheless.

METATAGS: "The Cabin in the Woods, Cabin on the Woods, Caben in the Woods, Cabin to the Woods, Cabin for the Woods, Cabin Woods, Caben Woods, Woods with a Cabin, Cabin and Woods, Cabin in the Forrest, MGM, Metro Gold Mayer, Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Metro Goldwin Mayer, Metro Goldwyn Mayar, Lion Studio, Roaring Lion Studio, Lion Roar Studio, Film, Scary Movie, Horror, Horor, Terror, Freak out, Movie, Drew Goddard, Drew Goddord, Drew Gaddard, Drew Godard, Andrew Goddard, Richard Jenkins, Richard Jenkens, Richard Jenkins, Dick Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, BradlleyWhitford, Brad Whitford, Brad Whitord, Bradley West Wing, Jesse Williams, Jess Wiliams, Jesse Willioms, Jese Williams, Jesse Williams, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Hemosworth, Kris Hemsworth, Chris Hemworth, Cris Hemsworth, Chris Hensworth, Fran Kranz, Franz Kranz, Fran Kronz, Francis Kranz, Fran Cranz, Kristen Connolly, Kristin Connolly, Kristen Connelly, Kristen Conely, Christen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Anne Hutchison, Ann Hutchison, Anna Huchison, Ann Hutch, Amy Acker, Amy Aker, Any Acker, Amy Acer, Lost, ABC Lost, ABC Island Show, ABC Airplane Crash Show, Alias, Jennifer Garner ABC Show, Alies, Allias, Aliace, Cloverfield, Clovafield, Cloverfeld, Clover Field, Clover Movie, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy Vampires, Bufy Vampire, Buffy Slayir, Buffy and the Vampire, Angel, Angil, Angell, Anngel, Firefly, Firfly, Firefli, Lightning Bug, Dollhouse, Dolhouse, Doll House, Playhouse"
Yeah, pretty odd. I mean they've got several references to 'Firefly' (including 'Lightning bug' which is cute ;) and 'Dollhouse' neither of which, IIRC, Drew had anything to do with so they're clearly aware of the Joss Whedon connection.

Quite an oversight.
Ladies and gentlemen! Balls and money! Gas giants and hot dense states! B!x's poster! Parsley, saje, rosemary and time-lords. Such a thread I've not enjoyed since - - well - - you know.


SLiTHER was good comedy horror. I saw it in a nearly empty theater but whoever borrowed and loved my last copy still hasn't seen fit to return it. Poor marketing? Who knows? It didn't catch.

"Cabin" may never show up. In this dimension or the next. Films have moldered away undistributed before. Sometimes it's perfectly reasonable, and sometimes it's the cosmos having a big laugh and saying, "Not your turn, li'l buddy."

"Red Dawn," however - - oh, orangewaxlion you do not know how much I wish that my father, born and raised in Spokane, had been in our dimension tonight so I could have enjoyed his reaction to your comments. Somewhere there is laughter. Thank you.
Thanks Cabri, Colorado seems maybe even more implausible than Spokane.

As for that point Gossi makes, about how there's already enough in the process that can hamper creative decision makings-- that's a pretty definite point. However, really, is changing one Commie menace to a different Commie menace really hampering the creative process of this film? I mean setting aside it's a remake of The Breakfast Club as a militia (which actually sounds like it should be amazing but I've heard the original film doesn't live up to that)...

It just seems like to me when they were making the film they just neglected to consider business decisions down the line which they probably could have factored into the development process even if they had no intention of this film as remotely grounded in actual politics or reality. Plus given the IMDB listings it seems like the majority of the listed Asian cast nominally playing Chinese are Korean anyway so they're effectively already making use of the interchangable east-Asians. (Okay, well of the three above the uncredited cut-off line, two are. From there on it gets ambiguous since there are eight more Asian-y names and some of them could fall under either language.)

I dunno, I was sort of not that big on the idea of this anyway, since it struck me as, aside from a remake of a property I didn't think people were that fond of in the first place, it seems slightly like it could fuel Yellow Peril fears. ...And I selfishly would rather have that directed more towards a clearly marginalized threat that's clearly about ideology. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone is aware of the distinction between North and South Korea and how that's a clear political difference and all that racial jazz. Whereas with China it's already a bit of a boogeyman with the economic power, military, population, willingness for IP infringement, and lower regulatory standards/lead paint in toys. That seems like such an arbitrary distinction, since either way the villains are played by Asians, and at least I'm willing to think that we mostly lookalike to people less familiar about distinctions (...including myself).

As for that pan-Asian thing in Firefly/Serenity, they really never did explain that backdrop to my satisfaction. As forward-projecting as it was, to have the big super-powers be the US and China, the faux/pan-Asian trappings seemed a little off to me considering how older generations have some loathing not only for WWII but historical events stretching back centuries. I'd think that 500 years on from now there's some chance enmity may still hamper that.

I'm just disappointed that there were so many boring western (as in cowboy) tropes while the multi-cultural stuff was mostly left to pretty visual window dressing. (And painful aural window dressing. Props to the cast and fans trying, but wow most of those accents were bad even by bad standards.)

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home