Salt got busted at the box office

Just a quick little note here about Angelina Jolie's Salt. As you all know, I am the self-proclaimed Worlds Worst Angelina Jolie fan. I know this makes me a heretic, an apostate and an antichrist in the world of Hollywood, but I don't give a bloody damn about that.

At the moment I am rejoicing; gloating really. Mr. Nolan's Inception retained it's #1 status at the box office. Frankly, it wasn't all that close. The score was 42.7 to 36. Salt will burn out much faster than Inception. You watch, bitches. Inception will continue to crank out big bucks for at least two more weeks.

So why do I gloat? Several reasons really. I have heard enough about Inception to understand that this is a serious Sci-Fi movie. How fortunate we are to get two excellent sci-fi movies, in close proximity. That makes the summer of 2010 a remarkable one. For the record, the other great Sci-Fi movie was Splice. Without having seen it, my only fear about Inception is that it might be too much of a rip-off of a Japanese Anime called Paprika, a movie I greatly admire.

Anytime a serious Sci-Fi movie squashes a so-called "A-Lister Vehicle" we have reason to hold a formal celebration. Let's get together and hold a party. Second of all, the dastardly Jolie has been formally defeated at the box office. We have another excellent reason to have a formal celebration. Let's get together and party. I am doing the BBQ.

Frankly, it absolutely shocks me that Hollywood continues to make A-Lister Vehicles, at all, in any regard, for anyone. The entire concept of an A-Lister Vehicle is outdated, outmoded and obsolete. It belongs to a bygone era of Hollywood, and has little bearing on the present moment.

Right now, I can imagine an uninformed Hollywood moguel shocked out of his mind, screaming at the top of his lungs "What the fuck are you talking about?"

What am I talking about? What am I talking about? Have you not read the results of the research that you paid for? Do you not keep tabs on the market research your own corporations commission and pay for? Are you ignorant of the facts in this case?

Back in 2003-2004, things were not going well at all for the movie industry. It was a brier patch in the history of the box office. The internet was getting powerful. Hollywood was not prepared to play there. DVD had already peaked, and was now illegally copy-able. Profits were down. A number of unexpected and disconcerting flops had occurred at the box office.

The five major studios had reason to believe were living at an inflexion point in the movie-tastes of the United States and the world. They commissioned a massive study of box office numbers for the entire run of recorded history. All five major studios transmitted their data to Ernst and Young, one of the legendary accounting firms of this world, and asked for a report. They wanted to know what sells tickets and why.

Ernest & Young did a pretty incredible study. They climbed all over that data with sophisticated data mining tools. Experts performed thousands of ANOVA and ANCOVAR studies with this data. They came up with some good generalizations that fit the data well, and make a hell of a lot of sense. The findings were published in early 2005.

Ernst & Young discovered that there were two basic models for selling a lot of tickets:

1. The classic Hollywood A-List model. In this approach, a casting director attempts to get a bunch of biggest names in Hollywood to sign-on for a movie. The presence of several attractive A-Listers sells massive numbers of tickets. Incidentally, an A-Lister is an individual who has been theoretically proven to draw large numbers of people to the box office. It doesn't mean you are sexy, and it doesn't mean you can act, but you bring people to the box office.
2. The big visual effects bonanza model. In this approach, producers spend tens of millions of dollars on 3d visual effects, and other animations, to produce a ton of Hollywood movie magic. You create vistas, environments and battles so epic, everyone wants to see. No A-List talent is required. Indeed, you can make such movies with complete unknowns.

Ernst & Young discovered that the classic A-List model had been operational and effective between 1910 and 1977. The A-List model was the most effective strategy for making money during that epoch in film history.

However, things changed in 1977. A little movie called Star Wars came out, and played at the box office for almost 2.5 years before it closed. Star Wars had no A-List talent. With the exception of Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing, and James Earl Jones, no one in the movie was even known by Hollywood. Whilst all three of those actors were very respected, none of them were A-List box office magnets. Still, Star Wars shot the lights out of the score board.

After that moment, the Holywood A-List scheme became increasing unreliable, sketchy, and risky. The big effects movie continued to grow and grow in terms of power and reliability. Ernst & Young concluded that A-Listers ain't worth the millions you pay them. You are better off financially casting nobody-actors, and spending a ton of money on visual effects.

Like the earlier conclusion which stated that most money was made through DVD, not theater ticket sales, this finding touched off a ferocious debate. Producers didn't like the notion that DVD made most of the money. They loved the Silver Screen. Likewise, many in Hollywood hated the finding that effects rule and A-Listers drool. This flies in the face of the glamor and fame culture that utterly dominates Hollywood.

This is an example of artist think. You will have to pardon my Virgo-ass, all of you artistic types, but there is a serious distinction between fact, and value. There is a distinction between what is and what aught to be. What is is factual, what aught to be is subjective opinion. Emotional types are unable to deal in matters of fact. They are only interested in how they feel about a subject.

Ernst & Young made a statement of fact. Effects make the money. Just look at Avatar. Just look at Inception. A-Listers don't necessarily make that sort of money. Just look at Knight and Day. Just look at Benjamin Button. Just look at Salt.

In football, you still see outmoded and unemployed former head coaches decrying the Spread Offense, declaring that it can never be an NFL offense for one reason or another. Maybe it's hash marks this week, and quarterback durability the next. This is inspite of the fact that the Spread is one of the most effective and feared offensive schemes in the NFL right now, and has been for some three years.

You still hear these outdated romantics crying out, "Bring back the days of smash-mouth running, let offensive linemen play again, and let the elephants dominate the game". That is a romantic idea, it has nothing to do with serious military strategy. Whilst they decry the forward pass, it is the forward pass that wins Super Bowls, full stop, period. The run doesn't win it anymore.

A similar thing is happing in Hollywood right now. It involves the outdated and outmoded A-List model of movie making. Big Hollywood types cry and scream and wail over the loss of big Hollywood stars, and say things like "I don't want to play in universe without big Hollywood stars."

Then don't play! The facts remain the facts. Effects make the money. A-Listers don't necessarily make the money. It should be pointed out that in 2005, the very year the report was published, the top-5 grossing box office movies were all visual effects bonanzas. Only The War of the Worlds contained an A-Lister. That was Tom Cruise. It finished third in money for that year. Believe me, it would have done as well or better without him.

The idea of making A-Lister vehicle is no better founded than the NFL Draft philosophy that you should take a franchise QB with the #1 overall-pick. That theory is also fallacious, according to the empirical statistics. Still, like fools, we all keep trying.

Now for the thesis point: The notion of creating an vehicle for Angelina Jolie is preposterous. I am sorry the notion ever occurred in your brain. You may make your money back, but this will not be the bonanza that several visual effects movies will be. Salt will soon be forgotten, just like a pile of other A-List vehicles have been forgotten.

If a movie's only claim to fame is that it has a so-called A-Lister, that movie is a waste of money and film. A-Listers do not make a movie worth seeing. You should terminate this approach to film making.

So the reviews for the final cut of Wolverine are starting to roll in

And it sure as fuck isn't pretty.  If you are a studio manager, you are going to have to be upset about reviews like this one.  They are calling it a fiasco.

For those of you stuck under a rock, obsessed with the NFL draft, the Jay Cutler drama, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, or the bad economy, there was another major story in March 2009. It turns out that world media piracy scored it's biggest kill ever.  They jacked an advanced working copy of the new Super Hero blockbuster X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  Of course, this XVID went straight to Bit Torrent, and from there to millions of kids around the world.

The work was unfinished at the time this cut was made.  None of the photo-realistic 3d visual effects (you can expect to see soon) are in the bootleg cut.  Super simple 3d previz graphics are in place.  DOS video game air planes fly across polygon grid sky, etc.  This is hysterical to the typical viewer.  You can also see the wires & cables attached to every character as he or she leaps across the warehouse, office, road, canyon, etc.  Wire removal is one of the most basic and important elements of action film effects these days.

As you may have gathered already, I did see a copy of this film.  Didn't manage to get all the way through it.  Time was pressing.  I needed to get home, and I was board.  The interest wore off rather quickly.  After the novelty of seeing a bad copy one month early wore thin, there was not much reason to watch it.  I refrained from reviewing the bootleg here, as I didn't finish it, and it is quite unfinished.

I wrote to some friends and told them the product was bad.  I did caution them that this work was unfinished, but with such hammy segues between critical plot-points, I couldn't see how this work might be fixed up.  A friend of mine inside the industry cautioned me not to draw any conclusion just yet.  He informed me that there are emergency editors in the world who are paid millions of dollars to fix-up would-be blockbusters teetering on the brink.  With some tweaking, the final cut can be dramatically improved.  He reminded me that the first cut of Star Wars is now a legendary fiasco among film students.  Everything was patched up by D-Day.

I respect this guy, so I heard him out, but I had a hard time believing that such an effort might fix this film.  With such fundamental mistakes in writing and direction, there is only so much magic an emergency editor can weave.

Anyway, the reviews of Wolverine look pretty nasty right now.  A preview was granted to a limited number of friendly critics.  According to Rottentomatoes.com, the number of critics there was just 17.  Right now the count is 9-8.  9 say it is good.  8 say it is bad.  Reading the 9 positive reviews will raise a lot of eyebrows.  When the review is positive, it is not very good.  When it is negative, it is pretty bad.  Based on a reading of these reviews, it would seem that there are some pissed off fanboys, and some lukewarm fanboys.

What will happen when the non-fanboys begin to review this movie?  Right now Wolverine is pulling 53% on the T-Meter, and the strength score.  I would expect that to fall right through the floor as hostile reviewers like Rex Reed begin to check in.  Expect this movie's T-Meter to finish in the 30s.

I have to say, I am most highly displeased.  I am a big fan of comic books.  This is the second bust in a row.  Worse still, this is a movie that should not have been a bust.  It could have and should have been every bit as good as Iron Man or the Incredible Hulk.  Wolverine is not like the Watchmen.  We are not talking about a vastly overrated piece of shit story here.  We're talking about one of the most favored characters in Marvel history.  They also have one of the most favored stars in Hollywood for this one.  What I see here is a missed opportunity for a terrific blockbuster.  Another one goes down the drain.

So, Dave, if you were to put a fine point on it, just what is wrong with this movie?  It is incredibly cliche.  You have a good brother.  You have an evil brother.  The two of them walk through life together, back-to-back until finally one day, the evil brother's evil becomes to terrible, and the good brother parts company with him.  Of course this means war, and the bad brother must have some revenge.  Now the good brother must kill the bad brother.

Folks, Ballywood makes 20 movies like this every single year.  I am not kidding you either.  They litterally make 20 of these movies every single year.  It is an old archetypal story.  This was just too damn similar to other basic stories I have seen.  It wore thin very fast once I identified the anchient pattern of the work.  Everything was utterly predictable.  No surprises here folks.  You knew the end from the begining.  This is why I didn't bother to finish it.