Schlock, Stock, and Two Choking Ferrells

Saw some interesting articles over at IMDB recently. One of them reported that MGM is courting Wall Street investors to raise $600 million to finance their upcoming features. Noted films included Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit, which should gross at least half of the total investment all by itself. The film is going to be split into two parts, which means that Jackson is taking the time to do it right, which shouldn’t surprise anyone.

After dangling that bit of bait, however, MGM listed some other upcoming films, including additional Pink Panther comedies and a remake of the 1980 musical Fame. Now I love Steve Martin, and I love the Pink Panther. Kevin Kline and Jean Reno are always fun to watch, too. But I avoided that movie like Beyoncé Knowles avoids acting lessons. And looking at the box office records, I wasn’t the only one. Why do we need more of these?

And why in the name of all that’s holy does anyone think we need an updated version of Fame? Musicals generally don’t do well at the box office to begin with, and so far, no one has demonstrated any sort of competence in repackaging those films and TV shows we Gen-Xers remember fondly (Miami Vice, anyone?). Who do you think will see this? The way things are now, you could film the auditions and put it up as a reality show – sort of a real-life A Chorus Line - and make more money. Show the finished production as your season finale, then tapdance off to the bank.

MGM spokesman Jeff Pryor is quoted as saying: "In the past, movie studios haven't offered Wall Street the opportunity to participate in their biggest and best films." According to the list you gave us, Jeff, you still aren’t.

In other movie magic news, Advanced Micro Devices recently released their new Ati Radeon graphics card. According to their spokesman, Neil Dessau, “the card will permit directors to control not only the lighting, staging, and dialog of movies digitally but also create virtual actors and easily manipulate their facial expressions.” Jules Urbach, founder of an animation firm says that it is now "possible to bring back actors from the past and realistically put them in new films."

I imagine most people, on hearing news like this, think about seeing their favorite dead actors in new movies without the director relying on spliced in footage, as with Humphrey Bogart in Steve Martin’s comedy Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid), or the flickering “holographic” images of Sir Lawrence Olivier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (I thought it was nice that he got a credit). I’m sure that somewhere, some director is already planning a movie starring James Dean, River Phoenix, and Heath Ledger.

As cool as all that would be, I’m fairly cynical about the motives of the studios. They will squeeze every last penny out of a movie, and keep squeezing long after everyone involved in the production has been paid off. That’s why we’re still seeing Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind sixty-nine years after they were first released; they’re still profitable for the studios. But what if it’s an actor or franchise you don’t like?

Let’s take some D-grade actor like Pauly Shore. Yes, he’s still alive. Even more disappointing, he keeps getting movie roles. I bet you that if some studio boss went to him and said “Paulie? We’d like to offer you $100,000 for the rights to use your likeness in perpetuity,” he’d jump on that faster than you can say “Fox cancelled me after only five episodes.”

Or think about the execrable teen “comedies” forced on us every year. Hire a bunch of unknowns for a flat fee; make increasingly-awful sequels; profit. (Come to think of it, that’s the American Pie formula.)

I like new tech as much as the next geeky fanboy, but I would also like some assurance that if Will Ferrell gets a chicken bone lodged in his throat, there will never be another Semi-Pro.