Movie Mystery, cont.

Hollywood finally had a decent weekend [reg. req.]: Thanks to Fantastic Four, receipts were higher this summer than for the same 2004 weekend for the first time in 19 weeks. But nobody's celebrating; the difference was tiny, and the money issue is masking a big attendance shortfall. Admissions are down 10.4 percent compared to last year, and even movies with good reviews (Murderball, Dark Water) aren't drawing.

The mystery Hollywood is pondering is whether these numbers reflect a succession of mostly uninteresting movies, which is fixable, or whether they reflect a shift in leisure-time use driven by new technology. Compounding the mystery is the case of the Shrek 2 DVD [more reg.]. Shrek 2 is reportedly the most profitable animated film ever made, and its producer, DreamWorks, expected DVD sales to match that achievement. While the DVD sold well, it didn't sell nearly as well as DreamWorks expected, one of a number of factors that have depressed the company's stock.

"The [DVD] market is fast approaching maturity," a trade publisher tells the LAT. "People who've bought DVD players have got a pretty big library and maybe they're being more selective."

Maybe they are. Or maybe they're distracted by video-game sex.

Thanks to ArtsJournal. For registration problems, try this.

Comments

Jennifer | July 13, 2005, 10:25am | #

Maybe DVD sales are down in part because movies keep falling off of trucks and landing on people's computers. It's the oddest thing.

wellfellow | July 13, 2005, 10:33am | #

That, and movies have been terribly one dimensional. There's only so much one can take.

cdunlea | July 13, 2005, 10:33am | #

whether these numbers reflect a succession of mostly uninteresting movies, which is fixable,

Really? I have to believe if they could fix the growing perception out here in realityland that Hollywood is recycling the same three movie concepts over and over, they would have done so.

To put it another way, why does it seem like every movie is a superhero/'70s show retread? Between that, and the total dreck that was the "Cat in the Hat" movie, it's pretty clear that H'wood is out of ideas, unless it's to take a masterwork childrens' book and totally f*ck it up it with fart jokes. Once you realize that the movies are now only about opening weekend box office receipts, you tend to stay away.

Ironchef | July 13, 2005, 10:41am | #

Netflix. Home theater. Widescreen. Director's Cut. DVD release dates coming sooner after the movie release.

Whatever reasons you may want to go out to a movie, the gap between those and watching it at home on DVD is shrinking.

Nathan | July 13, 2005, 10:56am | #

Apparently Pixar's stock price took a beating last week due to the same DVD sales slump with the Incredibles that Dreamworks has seen with Shrek II.

chthus | July 13, 2005, 11:00am | #

In addition to netflix, Blockbuster has been pushing it's pay one rate monthly program as well. I saw an ad last night with NYC couple bemoaning all the DVD's they bought taking up too much room in their apartment and now they are JUST SO HAPPY about renting again.

For me, the one month pay plan at the nearby Blockbuster, individual rentals from the Video Americain (a longer hike away) for harder to find things, and used DVD purchases for $10 and under at the local music store has been the standard for the past year or so.

Warren | July 13, 2005, 11:07am | #

"Or maybe they're distracted by video-game sex."

We must start demanding that anything linked to by the word "sex", absolutely must contain an accompanying picture.

duncan | July 13, 2005, 11:10am | #

I hear a lot that the reason people see less movies is because movies are so bad these days. Are movies really that much worse than before? We definitely seem to be making more adaptations, sequels, and remakes, but I seem to remember that the industry has always made 70% bad-to-mediocre films and 30% good-to-stellar films. Maybe the gap has widened a bit. I'm not sure, but I'm not convinced that movies overall have gotten that much worse.

I think movies are just being pressured by more entertainment choices. TV production has gotten much better over the years and the choices are much more diverse. The Internet gives you tons of ways to pursue your interests (I can't even get work done thanks to blogs). And since I was basically born with a joystick in my hand, I can say that I'd much rather spend my cash on a new game than a DVD.

And isn't kind of annoying to go to theater these days? I mean $8 for a ticket and money for snacks all to sit through lots of commercials and next to someone who figures its the perfect place for a phone conversation. Sounds fun.

keith | July 13, 2005, 11:12am | #

Doesn't it occur to anyone in power that a $10.75 per person ticket price and tiny theater screens might have SOMETHING to do with the drop-off in attendance?

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 11:15am | #

"People who've bought DVD players have got a pretty big library and maybe they're being more selective."

Or maybe they're sick of buying the initial release for $25, and have realized it's better to wait for the "Extended Super Edition" that will undoubtably be released two months after the initial video release. Of course, that will be followed up by the "Extended Director's Cut Super Edition," "Extended Director's Cut Super Gold Edition," and "Extended Director's Cut Super Platinum Hyper-3d Edition, with Pop-up factoids"

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 11:16am | #

Chtus is right, it's better to wait awhile and just go pick up a used copy at your local headshop/independent record store.

Twba | July 13, 2005, 11:38am | #

I don't like going to a theatre and hearing a running commentary by someone with a room temperature IQ. I'd rather wait a year and then watch in peace from my couch. I also like the pause button and the fridge stocked with reasonably priced foods and drinks. I stopped at a video rental shop on my way home a few days ago and bought four discs for twenty bucks. The bargain bin is where I find the good foreign films and the films for literate adults. I wonder if the box office slump will reduce the production of films I like to watch. It would be sad if only cheap, stupid crap for illiterate teenagers was produced.

ed | July 13, 2005, 11:39am | #

Smelly theaters, greasy seats, sticky floors, a seemingly endless stream of deafening trailers followed by yet another cartoon remake...what's not to love, Hollywood?

dave_b | July 13, 2005, 11:39am | #

I am personally on a movie boycott until Hollywood comes up with something non-derivative. I mean, look at this list:

Bewitched
The Honeymooners
Dukes of Hazzard
Fantastic Four
War of the Worlds
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Herbie
Bad News Bears

Those are bad and unoriginal enough, but they crossed the fucking line when they announced a sequel to Road House. http://tinyurl.com/dkybv I was already an art-house obscure flick buff, but it will be a cold day in hell before I spend $7.50 on some plotless explosion and/or CGI-fest with a bunch of cell-phone toting barbarians who are totally unaware of subtle humor and think slapstick is the height of comedy. When the big studios announce yet another remake with big-name actors and uber-effects, I am reminded of the saying that a turd in a tuxedo is still a turd.

Russ D | July 13, 2005, 11:52am | #

Chicago Tribune had an article the other day (tried to find it in the archives so I could link it, couldn't find it quickly) interviewing some theater managers. Basically, they said "Yeah, our receipts are down about 1-2% from last year, but we've had 5-6% fewer films so business isn't bad at all."

Randolph Carter | July 13, 2005, 11:59am | #

Just to be fair about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it's supposed to be a more faithful adaptation of the book by Roal Dahl (spelling?). Saying it's a remake is like saying the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a remake of the rankin-bass cartoons.

OPUS | July 13, 2005, 12:04pm | #

The studios release 680 films a year. With only 52 Fridays to have an opening weekend we should at least get 52 decent movies a year! When it is all said and done only about 30 movies are any good at all. I pay $80 month for Dish and I paid $2000 for my HD TV and damn, I will get my monies worth at home before I see another piece of garbage at $10 dollars a ticket at the Theater.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 12:15pm | #

I, for one, have weened myself off of film. With the exception of the new Wallace & Gromit and the upcoming MirrorMask there is nothing I have any interest in seeing. As a raging geek this makes me a bit of an outcast with some friends who cannot fathom the concept. I am repeatedly told "Oh, but Batman Begins is good." Don't matter. I've been burned by the medium too much.

If you went to a restaurant and were served feces instead of the steak you ordered, you would not return there again, no matter how many people told you to try the chicken.

I've also applied this principle to Marvel Comics, the Star Trek franchise, and a few other hopeless causes. I'm a much happier person.

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 12:21pm | #

Jeff- Total agreement on Trek.

I'm sure you've seen Firefly, thoughts?

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 12:29pm | #

Haven't seen Firefly. The cast always struck me as too pretty. However my friend who works at SciFi tells me they will run all the episodes starting at the end of the month, so I'll watch'em.
Love Galactica, which surprized me as I've had it up to HERE with military SF.
Also loved the new Dr. Who and the new Capt. Scarlet. Both fell off a truck, y'know.
My favorite recent TV was Justice League Unlimited, which used the history of DC/WB toons to establish a scope comparable to the comic book DC Universe, made superhero stories interesting for the first time in years, and made 1/2 drama a viable comodity again.

ChrisO | July 13, 2005, 12:40pm | #

Well, if both movie tix and DVD sales are falling, then the "other types of leisure activity" would have to be the obvious answer, wouldn't it? It's certainly no coincidence that video game sales have skyrocketed--the amount of dollars generated by that industry is surprisingly huge. And heck, think of all those hours people spend trolling around on libertarian blogs... :)

Statsman | July 13, 2005, 12:48pm | #

Any correlations with changing demographics? Who else but a teen or young adult would waste their time going to an opening?

mk | July 13, 2005, 12:56pm | #

ChrisO,

For me, the difference between playing Rome:Total War and watching Kingdom of Heaven was that the soldiers in the video game are a little less wooden than Orlando Bloom. So, yeah, I hear what you are saying.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 12:57pm | #

(cue dramatic voice)
"In a two-party world..."

(shots of computer keyboards, the muted sound of a heartbeat)

"...One chat room is all that stands..."

(close-ups of eyes darting back and forth)

"...between you..."

(a succession of computer screens going to static)

"...and OBLIVION!"

(the standard melange of explosions, gunshots, and car chases, with shitty hip-hop alt-metal pummelling your clavical bones)

"Hit & Run 2: Blogstorm Rising!"

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 12:59pm | #

Jeff- Pretty cast, but in my book that's a plus. If you've seen Cowboy Bebop, there are a lot of very similar character arcs and thematic elements.

What's surprising is that the show openly embraces a lot of libertarian ideals. Dunno if Firefly would be considered too lowbrow for the crowd here at Reason, but the regular online crowd I hang with ate it up.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 1:09pm | #

I'm not big on pretty casts. I like my heroes hard-to-look-at.
My other bit of skittishness going into Firefly is that the three episodes of Buffy I've aired at the station I work at were truly unwatchable. One was a singularly horrible hour. It soured me on any future Whedon stuff for a while.
He did a future slayer comic called Prey that I liked, so I'm willing to give him a chance.

MyNameIsAsh | July 13, 2005, 1:12pm | #

So by trying to make movies that appeal to as many people as possible in order to get the biggest opening weekend possible the picture studios make movies that nobody really likes. Sounds a lot like national politics...

On a side note Jeff, justice league rules! Is it on any other time besides that one Saturday night slot? Seems like everythin else on Cartoon Network is on at least several times a week...

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 1:19pm | #

Ash: Dunno. I downloaded them after they aired in Canada. I'm more miffed that there are over 50 episodes of the awful Krypto show in the can already while we wait until next year for more JLU.

In the meantime we can watch two long-robed mystics battle it out.

Umbriel | July 13, 2005, 1:25pm | #

dave b --

I happen to know the guy that wrote the screenplay for Road House 2. He says that, actually, your comment is pretty much on target, but that he loved every minute of writing it anyway. ;)

dave_b | July 13, 2005, 1:30pm | #

Umbriel-

Is it going to involve a Travolta-like career resurrection for Patrick Swayze, or do they plan to pick someone else? I am only asking out of curiosity, because I don't plan to see it unless it's at gunpoint.

Jim Walsh | July 13, 2005, 1:31pm | #

I saw F4 over the weekend and actually liked it, though I agree with Roger Ebert about one thing: if you're lucky enough to get Jessica Alba in your movie, why make her invisible?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 13, 2005, 1:35pm | #

I think Hollywood needs to rediscover a concept called "story". You can't have a decent freak'n movie without a decent freak'n script!!

I was watching "National Treasure" last night and I almost had a seizure. My neighbors probably thought I was crazy because I was constantly yelling at the TV.. "WTF?! This is BEYOND STUPID! Cliche! Cliche! Yeah, great, Nick! Phone in that next line! Oh, the Masons are actually Catholic knights? Okay, THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!" I swear, the script must've been churned out by a computer fed with every conceivable plot contrivance and characters we've seen countless times before.

STORY, assholes!! Tell us a decent story!

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 1:52pm | #

Mr. Walsh: wondering if it is nessesary for The Invisible Girl to turn invisible is a big part of Hollywood's problem. This results in Alec Baldwin constantly removing his scarf and hat in the Shadow movie, and Peter Parker taking his mask off every ten minutes.
It's also responsible for I, Robot being a movie about evil robots.

Hollywood Insider | July 13, 2005, 1:56pm | #

Mr. Nice,

They use monkeys, not computers.

Umbriel | July 13, 2005, 1:58pm | #

dave b --

No Swayze, no Kelly Lynch, no Ben Gazarra. Here's the current preproduction news:

http://www.moviehole.net/news/5927.html

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 2:03pm | #

My other bit of skittishness going into Firefly is that the three episodes of Buffy I've aired at the station I work at were truly unwatchable. One was a singularly horrible hour. It soured me on any future Whedon stuff for a while.

I've seen one episode of Buffy and one episode of Angel. Both were awful.

Whedon more than makes up for both of them with Firefly. The dialogue is infectiously quotable, the characters interesting, the stories are enjoyable, the sets and prop designs are inspired, and the digital effects are very well done, especially given the time constraints of producing a season of hour-long drama.

Normally at this point, I'd be worried that I'm over-praising the show, but I'm not sure that it's possible to do here.

And thankfully the movie version is coming out soon. :-)

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 2:08pm | #

I was watching "National Treasure" last night and I almost had a seizure.

I have a rule of thumb: If Jerry Bruckheimer produced it, it sucks. Doubly so if it's a Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay joint. They suck on what I can only describe as a higher plane of suckitude.

It's also responsible for I, Robot being a movie about evil robots.

The trailers for that movie just...ugh.
I Robot in a Nutshell

rich | July 13, 2005, 2:09pm | #

cost of two tickets at the cineplex: $21 ($23 if we purchase online)
cost of popcorn and snacks for 2 people, avg: $13.50
cost to park at cineplex: $5 (plus a dollar for every 20 mins or fraction thereof past 3 hours that the movie + trailers + annoying TV ads + admonitions to be good theater patrons, all largely ignored, happens to run)

Total cost for an evening at the movies: about $40. In exchange for which we have to sit through approximately 20 minutes of commercials for products and services we have no interest in and movies we have no intention of watching.

We can get a nice romantic dinner for two for the same price, then use our $11/mo netflix account to watch a movie at home. The same netflix account operates as a try-before-you-buy - if the movie is good, *then* we plunk down money to buy it, not before. (exceptions made for known quantities - i fully intend to buy the Sin City DVD the day it's released, for example - oops, i just marked myself as lowbrow didn't I? but then my comments in the mary carey thread the other week probably outed me already.)

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 2:15pm | #

Sin City was not lowbrow. It was "stylish."

mk | July 13, 2005, 2:25pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy,
If The DaVinci Code is Umberto Eco for idiots, what does that make the people who thought National Treasure was great?

My daughter loved that film, btw but she just turned nine.

Faceless Studio Executive | July 13, 2005, 2:30pm | #

Hit & Run 2: Blogstorm Rising!

We're prepared to option that for $5 million if you can get us a full treatment by Friday. We see Freddy Prinze, Jr. as Tim Cavanaugh, Mos Def as thoreau, and a special guest appearance by Tara Reid as smacky.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 2:51pm | #

Sam Jackson as Nick Gillespie. We need a bigger black demo for this. And Sanchez should be a wise-cracking kid. We'll combine Walker and Sullum into "T-Dog," the Nam-vet surf dude Lebowski-esque character who goes to Washington.

Jim | July 13, 2005, 2:53pm | #

I used to buy a lot of DVD's and now I don't because:

1) It's stupid to pay all that money for something you watch once.
2) I now have HDTV and I know that anything good will eventually end up on a cable channel.
3) With the advent of HD I'm no longer sold on the superior quality of the format.
4) Many DVD releases are poorly suited for the newer 16 by 9 television screens.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 2:54pm | #

Oh, minor change: the weblog chat-room is now a dive bar in danger of closing down due to zoning regs.

And that shirtless Ultimate Fitness guy gets a cameo.

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 2:59pm | #

You mean John Basedow?

Mr. Nice Guy | July 13, 2005, 3:05pm | #

I, too, would take anyone on who claims that "Sin City" is lowbrow.

I think movies based on graphic novels are hitting close to 100% as far as being excellent..

From Hell
Road to Perdition
American Splendor
now "Sin City"

..all pretty damned good.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 3:07pm | #

No, Mediageek, the shirtless guy in the ad up on the right side of this page. The one in the jeans.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 3:09pm | #

From Hell was awful. Kinda need the autopsy scene for the story to work.
I'd add Rocketeer to the list.

Lowdog | July 13, 2005, 3:16pm | #

You know what I didn't like about the movie 'Road to Perdition' is the end. I can't remember exactly what rubbed me the wrong way, but it had something to do with the kid talking about never picking up a gun (again). I just thought it smacked of "guns are bad, m'kay". Cuz look at how bad guns were for him and his family. Hello? Not everyone's a fucking hitman for the mob.

But that's probably my fierce love affair with firearms, especially now that I'm playing a lot of Counterstrike.

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 3:18pm | #

But that's probably my fierce love affair with firearms, especially now that I'm playing a lot of Counterstrike.

Um. Yeah...

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 3:22pm | #

Geeze. Jeff puts a joke right *here* and I decide that the punchline is way out *there.*

Lowdog | July 13, 2005, 3:22pm | #

yeah what? I do a lot of target shooting, and now I'm also playing a lot of counterstrike...hence I'm definitely in a firearms kinda mood lately.

what's so snark-inducing about that? *shrugs*

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 3:24pm | #

I *heart* guns. Counterstrike just causes my inner gun snob to twitch convulsively.

dave_b | July 13, 2005, 3:25pm | #

Faceless Studio Exec -

The only way you're going to get me to see that is if you cast Lewis Black as Gary Gunnels.

Don Mynack | July 13, 2005, 3:30pm | #

I think a lot of why Shrek 2 was returned in massive numbers was that Shrek 2 sucked hard. I couldn't even get my kids to watch it, after they had worn the original out.

We saw The Incredibles in the theater, but my kids only wanted to watch it a couple of times on DVD. I think it skews a bit more "adult" than intended, and I don't mean the good kind of "adult".

Lowdog | July 13, 2005, 3:30pm | #

Ahhh, fair enough. Do you like first-person shooter games at all? Online multi-player games?

When they first came out, I was like "whatever", but the graphics have gotten so good, I think they're fun as hell. And I don't know what it is about CS (my friend calls it "Counter-productive"), but I think it's fun as hell, too. I love blasting someone who's 1000 miles away while I'm drinking a beer and sitting around in my underwear. :)

But I suppose I could understand if I let my inner gun snob take over. :)

Back on-topic: I don't really watch movies much, especially in the theatre. I'm definitely one of those people who gives way more money to the video game industry. Aside from trying to keep my computer current enough to play a lot of the hottest games with the best graphics, I also spend money on the games themselves.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 3:31pm | #

"Mediageek," "Lowdog," and "Mr. Nice Guy" all work as movie character nicknames. I picture a bumbling version of the Lone Gunmen...

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 3:45pm | #

The CNN crawl just said that Owen Wilson is going to star in a remake of Secret Life of Walter Mitty.
We need 'The Big One' now, please.

smacky | July 13, 2005, 3:51pm | #

Faceless Studio Exec (or should I say brainless studio exec?) --

I can't fucking believe you cast Tara Reid to play me!! As if I don't already have low enough self-esteem. Not only is that a bad choice, but it is completely inaccurate casting. I am one of the most demure and classy women you'd ever know (despite my bawdy posts), and I know the English language quite well. Furthermore, I would like to add that I have a much better sense of style than her. I would never wear the tacky crap that she walks around in. I can't believe you cast Tara Reid to play me!! She is the running joke of the celebrity fashion world. I am really offended this time. And I'm not faking. This is probably the worst insult you could have given me.

Of course, you can make it up to me. How about Scarlett Johannsen or Nicole Kidman instead? (At the very least, Nicole Ritchie or Paris Hilton.) (......but Tara fucking Reid?!) ANYONE ELSE is better than that. Tom Arnold would be better. Fuck.

I second casting Lewis Black as Gary Gunnels. I absolutely love Lewis Black. And who else can do ranting quite like him?

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 4:01pm | #

Lowdog-
Yeah. Back in the days of the original Wolfenstein 3d, DOOM, etc. I was an FPS freak. In college it was all about Unreal Tournament and Half-Life. In the last couple years I've really stopped playing games very heavily. Though I've gone through HALO I & II and found them to be a lot of fun.

Anywho, if you want to talk gun stuff, feel free to come over to The High Road

I mod over there, and try to keep my inner gun snob in check, though it doesn't always work. :)

mediageek | July 13, 2005, 4:05pm | #

"Mediageek," "Lowdog," and "Mr. Nice Guy" all work as movie character nicknames. I picture a bumbling version of the Lone Gunmen...

Isn't "bumbling version of the Lone Gunmen" redundant? Or are you just getting an extra helping of bumble?

Born Again Iconoclast | July 13, 2005, 4:08pm | #

"Just to be fair about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it's supposed to be a more faithful adaptation of the book by Roal Dahl (spelling?). Saying it's a remake is like saying the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a remake of the rankin-bass cartoons."

Well, my comment on this is a day late and a dollar short, but anyway, I'm not looking forward to Tim Burton's latest mess. I don't see how it could be more faithful than the first film, as Roald Dahl was involved with the original film, even writing part of the screenplay if I remember correctly.

(Two backslaps to Mr. Dahl for penning the worst Connery 007 film)

Although, I do hope Burton puts a little bit of the social commentary back in it. I remember how horrible Charlie's dad's job was (eight hours a day screwing the caps on toothpaste tubes) so vividly, it was one of the main reasons I was determined to go to college growing up! Scared Straight!!

I would have been more impressed if Burton made a film of the sequel "The Great Glass Elevator", which I DID re-read as an adult and realized there was a lot more political and socail satire in that one than the first book. The Dept. of Defense Space Hotel reads like something straight out of the Cheney-Bush-Halliburton canon.

And maybe I'm a twisted-minded adult now, but looking back, I believe Dahl was sneaking a little sex education into his books by having vermicious knids (sperm)trying to attack the earth (ovum) ...

P.S. Rankin-Bass still rocks. My nieces and nephews will never the impatient joy of waiting a whole year to see "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" on ABC.

Or comparing the kid in class with the worst hairdo to Heat Miser ....

grylliade | July 13, 2005, 4:08pm | #

Re: Buffy and Angel

You've got to see the right seasons. Anything in the first three for Buffy
is good. Four and five were still above-par for television, but nowhere near as good. Seasons six and seven were just painful. They were still, objectively, watchable, far more so than most shit that goes on the air today, but in comparison to what came before they were an insult. So if any of you that didn't like Buffy have a chance to watch an episode from the first three seasons, do so. I'm not guaranteeing you'll like it — I know quite a few smart, discriminating people who don't — but at least you'll see why some people love it. I, personally, think that those first three seasons are the best television made yet.

Same deal with Angel — first couple seasons good, next one or two not nearly as good, last one or two awful. I didn't watch it as religiously, so I'm not sure of the exact cutoffs. Keep in mind that the shows generally went downhill when Joss Whedon wasn't heading up production; he took a good bit of time away from Buffy and Angel to work on Firefly, which, by the way, rocks on toast. By far the best sci-fi TV show I've ever seen.

See the movie trailer for Serenity (the movie based off Firefly) here.

Jennifer | July 13, 2005, 4:29pm | #

I'm not looking forward to Tim Burton's latest mess. I don't see how it could be more faithful than the first film

I don't see how it could be LESS faithful to the book than the first film, unless it turns out to be a remake of "Gone with the Wind."

smacky | July 13, 2005, 4:34pm | #

Another suggestion regarding Hit & Run 2: Blogstorm Rising! :

Might I suggest Jennifer Connelly play Jennifer? That is what I have always pictured H&R's Jennifer to look like. She's purdy.

Born Again Iconoclast | July 13, 2005, 4:46pm | #

"Gone With The Wind"? Hollywood hasn't remade THAT one yet. Hmmmmmm ....

Oh well, in the meantime, I'm still waiting on the feature film version of the TV Sitcom "One Day At A Time".

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 4:46pm | #

Hmmmm, Jennifer Connelly has a bit of a willowy face for Jennifer. If you could cross SNL-era Julie Louis Dreyfess with Jennifer Jason Leigh in Hudsucker Proxy you'd get a good approximation. In certain light there's some serious Ava Gardner action happening.

Jennifer | July 13, 2005, 4:48pm | #

Why, thank you, Smacky. I hadn't heard of Jennifer Connelly, so I did a Google image search and I am very flattered.

Then I did an image search for "Smacky." I wish I hadn't done that.

Born Again Iconoclast | July 13, 2005, 4:52pm | #

Hollywood Producer 1: "Hey, now that we've done 'The Brady Bunch', "Addams Family', 'Starsky and Hutch', 'Honeymooners', and god knows what else, how about if we go for a feature film remake of the TV show 'Alice'?"

Hollywood Producer 2: "Uh ... that one was already done some time ago by Martin Scorsese."

"Hollywood Producer 1: "Oh yeah ... yeah ... Um, as a matter of fact, I think I saw that on Showtime one night. Man, DeNiro didn't make a very convincing Mel, did he?"

Jennifer | July 13, 2005, 4:52pm | #

That last post of mine was not in ANY way meant to impugn the appearance of the Smacky who posts here; I'm just saying that there are some very disturbing smacky-images out there. Although the guy who's falling-down drunk looked pretty comical.

Mo | July 13, 2005, 4:56pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy always sounded Jamaican in my head, b. "Right near the beach, boyyeeee"

According to my friends, I look like a significantly less fit version of Vin Diesel (at least when I shave my head). Considering the fact that most brown actors in Hollywood are either large Hispanics or John Leguizamo, it's Diesel or nothing for me. I'll also accept Mr. T, not because of any resemblance, but because it's been my childhood dream to be represented in film by Mr. T.

smacky | July 13, 2005, 5:03pm | #

Look here.

See that little guy in bed with the kittie? That's me. smacky.

Ok, to tell you the truth, that's not a very recent picture. I've matured a bit since that photo was taken. It's not very reflective of what I look like now.

Bucky | July 13, 2005, 5:10pm | #

I'm not packin' heat. I'm packin' smacky.

Jeff | July 13, 2005, 5:58pm | #

Debra Messing could also play Jennifer.

Mo: How 'bout the guy who plays Keith on Six Feet Under?

As Edmond Blackadder said "and I shall be played by the most heroic actor of the time."

Mo | July 13, 2005, 6:31pm | #

He's a bit dark skinned to play me, but I he could do. My skin color could be described as the color of the milk after a bowl of Cocoa Krispies.

Mo | July 13, 2005, 6:32pm | #

Oh or Chris Kataan (I do a mean Mango impression). In fact, when someone said I looked like the love child of Vin Diesel and Chris Kataan, the whole room was laughing at the accuracy. Bastards.