Full article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/11/business/strike.php?page=1

The gist: The studios may not be lying when they’re telling the writers on strike that they cannot afford another 4 cents per DVD.

Despite bringing in billions of dollars per year, movie studios may in fact be losing money. An independent study was made that basically audits the movie industry and one of the biggest drains in the last decade has been the participation points offered to A-list movie stars and directors (i.e. Will Smith, Steven Spielberg, etc.).

What some people don’t know is that those actors making $20mil per movie are in fact making between $50 to $70mil thanks to profit participation. But the problem isn’t the points but the fact that the points come off the GROSS REVENUE, not the net profits. So assuming the actor is getting 1%, that means they’re getting 1% of EVERY DOLLAR the movie makes for however long the movie plays.

Typically, when someone gets points, it’s off the net profits. That means everyone, the studios, the theatres, the rental companies, the FX companies, EVERYONE, gets paid FIRST. Once everyone’s paid, then the net profit begins, and from THAT chunk of change is when the lesser known people get their percentages from (such as writers, B-list actors, etc.)

But over the last decade or so, big name people have been getting their percentages BEFORE everyone else, even the studios. So even if the movie bombs, the actor makes bank. What this does is it causes the movie to break even much, MUCH later, and everyone waiting for the net profits have to wait longer.

For example, let’s look at “Anger Management”, which cost $75mil to make. Let’s tack on another $50mil for marketing, which brings the total to $125mil. The movie made $136mil when it closed, so it was profitable, right? WRONG. If you check out IMDB, you’ll see that Adam Sandler’s salary was $25mil against 25% of the gross revenues. What this means is even though the movie should’ve made a $10mil profit, it had in fact lost $8mil. And that’s just figuring Sandler’s take, I’m sure Jack Nicholson got some points as well. Anger Management only made a profit thanks to foreign distribution and video sales.

My point is that many people in movies nowadays are getting paid way, WAY too much. Adam Sandler made $34mil for Anger Management. Arnold Schwarzenegger made around $50mil for Terminator 3. Tom Cruise made $75mil from Mission Impossible 2. And for just a few months’ work. Does this really seem fair to anyone? This is the reason why movies cost so goddamn much, why it costs $15-20 per person to watch a movie and why new DVDs cost $30.

Posted on November 12th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: Opinion | 1 Comment »

(btw, this verifies my previous guess that workers on strike cannot be fired…)

Today the Los Angeles Times posted an email from a key grip… sorry, EX-key grip of NBC’s The Office.

“Our show was shut down and we were all laid off this week. I’ve been watching the news since the WGA strike was announced and I have yet to see any coverage dedicated to the effect that this strike will have on the below the line employees.

I respect the WGA’s position. They probably do deserve a larger percentage of profit participation, but a lengthy strike will affect more than just the writers and studios. On my show we had 14 writers. There were also 2 cameramen, 2 camera assistants, 4 hair stylists, 4 makeup artists, 7 wardrobe people, 4 grips, 4 electricians, 2 craft service, 4 props people, 6 construction, 1 medic, 3 art department, 5 set dressers, 3 sound men, 3 stand-ins, 2 set PAs, 4 assistant directors, 1 DGA trainee, 1 unit manager, 6 production office personnel, 3 casting people, 4 writers assistants, 1 script supervisor, 2 editors, 2 editors assistants, 3 post production personnel, 1 facilities manager, 8 drivers, 2 location managers, 3 accountants, 4 caterers and a producer who’s not a writer. All 102 of us are now out of work.

I have been in the motion picture business for 33 years and have survived three major strikes. None of which have been by any of the below the line unions. During the 1988 WGA strike many of my friends lost their homes, cars and even spouses. Many actors are publicly backing the writers, some have even said that they would find a way to help pay bills for the striking writers. When the networks run out of new shows and they air repeats the writers will be paid residuals. The lowest paid writer in television makes roughly twice the salary than the below the line crewmember makes. Everyone should be paid their fair share, but does it have to be at the expense of the other 90% of the crewmembers. Nobody ever recoups from a strike, lost wages are just that, lost.

We all know that the strike will be resolved. Eventually both sides will return to the bargaining table and make a deal. The only uncertainty is how many of our houses, livelihoods, college educations and retirement funds will pay for it.”

The “the strike will be resolved” statement has been spewed over and over by hundreds of people. Everyone “hopes for the best.” Well, I’m not seeing anything being done to solve it. I understand the point of going on strike is to show the big wigs that the company suffers without their employees, but shouldn’t the point of having a union rep you be that they negotiate with the companies?? Nobody’s fucking negotiating! All I see is a bunch of grown people acting like babies throwing a tantrum.

Posted on November 10th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: WGA Strike, Television, Opinion | No Comments »

(yes, I know it’s called “The Tonight Show”… but c’mon, no one ever calls it that)

Interesting bit of news from the only source I need to keep me up on the WGA strike, DeadlineHollywoodDaily It seems that NBC is firing the “non-writing” staff on the show (unless I’m mistaken you can’t fire someone who’s on strike?) at the end of next week. Yes, that’s right, the non-writing staff of The Tonight Show is getting canned the week before Thanksgiving. To make matters more interesting, since Leno won’t cross the picket line, NBC will be bringing in guests hosts to take his place.

I find it interesting not as a strike-related matter but because recently there’s been friction between Jay Leno and NBC, being that Leno is having second thoughts about retiring (he’s contractually obligated to quit in a few years so NBC can give his show to Conan O’Brien). NBC keeping the show going on without Leno is very much like telling him, “We don’t need you, you big chinned freak.”

Posted on November 9th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: WGA Strike, Television, Opinion | No Comments »

The trailer for Tom Cruise’s upcoming movie Valkyrie, where he plays the man that was supposed to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Only you wouldn’t know it because he’s the only actor in the whole movie without an accent.

Posted on November 8th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: Trailers | No Comments »

Nikki Finke (journalist for LA Weekly) has her own website over at DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com and she’s updating daily posts like once an hour with the latest inside info from both sides of the WGA picket line. Not all of it is verified, but good reading nonetheless.

Posted on November 6th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: WGA Strike | No Comments »

Since I forgot to post an Undeserving Star last week, I’m posting two now. I’ll still be posting a new one this Friday

This Last week’s pick: Kermit the Frog and Big Bird.

Why? It’s bad enough that undeserving people get a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame, but these two aren’t even people! They’re freakin’ fictional characters! One of them is a sock with someone’s hand up its ass and the other ambiguously gay.

I encourage the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to hereforeto deny a star to anything that doesn’t have a legal birth certificate. A human birth certificate.

Posted on November 5th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: Undeserving Stars | No Comments »

… do you know where YOUR writer is?

Posted on November 5th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: WGA Strike | No Comments »

Written & Directed by Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor (upcoming Game)
Starring Jason Statham, Amy Smart, Efren Ramirez, and Dwight Yoakam
IMDB Plot Summary: Professional assassin Chev Chelios (Statham) learns his rival (Jose Pablo Cantillo) has injected him with a poison that will kill him if his heart rate drops.

Despite the obvious parallel between this movie and Speed (i.e. the protagonist loses if something falls below a certain level), Crank actually manages to stand on its own as a movie in that you’re not always thinking “This is a rip-off of Speed.” Unfortunately, it’s those unique elements that sets Crank apart that may be its own downfall.

What we have here is the feature debut of a pair of guys whose only feature-film experience was doing special effects (and not much, to boot). I think the Speed reference and the constant use of special effects (which sometimes are awkwardly used to achieve what I assume is an accidentally comic effect), especially in the beginning of the movie, are big red flags that these guys should’ve probably let someone else write the script. The concept is great and the movie would’ve been 10 times better, albeit different, in the hands of an experienced writer.

The highlight of the movie is clearly Jason Statham, who goes the extra mile to entertain us (especially by spending maybe 15 minutes of the movie in a hospital gown, which I’m sure made him the butt of jokes between takes). Statham’s trademark dry British wit created a character that would otherwise fail had someone else done it.

I do have to give writer/directors Neveldine/Taylor props for coming up with interesting situations the characters fall into, such as Chev and his girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) having sex in the middle of a Chinatown marketplace in order to keep Chev’s adrenaline going; unfortunately some of the other situations were either too quickly done with or didn’t have sufficient punch (like when Chev has someone shock him with a defibrillator to juice up his heart).

It’s actually rather ironic that in the bonus features, Neveldine/Taylor talk about how the movie has rest periods or otherwise the audience would get strung out from too much action. I think the movie would’ve been much better had they taken the opposite approach, as it would’ve put the audience in a similar mood as what Chev was experiencing.

Posted on November 4th, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: Movie Reviews | No Comments »

Written by Stuart Bettie (Collateral, Derailed)
Directed by David Slade (Hard Candy)
Starring Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston, Ben Foster, Manu Bennett
IMDB Plot summary: After an Alaskan town is plunged into darkness for a month, it is attacked by a bloodthirsty gang of vampires.

I was intrigued by reports that 30 Days of Night expanded upon the vampire genre much like 28 Days Later did with the zombie genre. And it was Halloween, so what perfect movie to watch than 30 Days? Unfortunately, it didn’t quite deliver. What I was faced with was a story that not only didn’t update vampire movies, but did little to help my suspension of disbelief.

For starters, the premise is that vampires show up in this Alaskan town where the sun goes down for 30 days. To take advantage of the darkness, the vampires knock out all electricity to the town. For some bizarre reason, it doesn’t dawn on any of the survivors to simply get into a truck and high-tail to the next town, which is only 80 miles away (an hour’s drive).

The movie then pushes me to believe that the survivors go up to a week without being attacked by the vampires (multiple times). On-screen text tells you what day it is (”Day 1″, “Day 7″, etc.). So on Day 1, the town is attacked and we have our select group of survivors (led by Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, who play the sheriff and fire marshall, respectively) who hide in someone’s attic, which is fine. But the whole town only has like 80 houses… you expect me to believe the vampires, who KNOW there are people alive, won’t tear through all the homes looking for these people?? 30 Days gives one the impression that the vampires are completely lazy and only attack people if they happen to come across them while walking around.
Suspension of disbelief aside, the film does have decent action scenes, albeit short and sparse. In fact, the best one that comes to mind is near the beginning, when a silhouetted figure jumps on top of the sheriff’s truck and viciously pummels the top of it trying to get to the people inside. The intensity and cinematography of that scene worked great.

Another problem for me was the constant shrieking the vampires induced. Whenever the vampires were grouped, or if an individual vamp was about to attack, they would let out this horrible shriek, which could’ve actually done its job of frightening the audience if it hadn’t been for the overuse of it. When grouped, the vampires would shriek all together for what seemed like 30 seconds continuously. I found myself covering my ears because it was not only getting annoying but it was giving me a headache.

Overall, the movie was a disappointment. Few scares, low on the action and somewhat disjointed. I will give props for the ending, which was done well, but doesn’t save the rest of the movie.

Posted on November 1st, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: Movie Reviews | No Comments »

The WGA contract expired at midnight. The strike doesn’t start until tomorrow or Monday, but there’s already been one casualty: one of the major agencies is withholding a week’s worth of pay to ALL their employees in order to have more “financial flexibility.”

(Update: rumors are indicating the agency cutting pay is ICM, a truly major H’wood agency)

There’s already another victim on the chopping block: live television. Shows like The Daily Show are already announcing they’ll be going into reruns for the duration of the strike since their writers won’t be working anymore. Some shows like The Late Show and The Tonight Show haven’t said anything about reruns, but how long can they last without writers?

Posted on November 1st, 2007 by Enrique
Filed under: WGA Strike, Television, Politics | No Comments »