Hollywood is just like the universe.
Because if you travel far enough, you'll (probably) end up right back where you started.
I went back to Paramount today thanks to an old friend (thanks friend!). Walking amidst the sound stages, another friend, who had never been, and like many, imagined a studio backlot to be a bustling place of active filming, remarked, “is it always this quiet here?” She was talking about the general level of activity (it wasn’t abnormally slow FWIW), but it was funny because when we had went through the gate to get our passes, I engaged the security guard in some small talk and asked if the writers strike had made his job harder or easier - “harder, because the people that they’re trying to reach can’t hear anything, but I get all the honking and noise.” He didn’t seem to be complaining, just making an astute observation that outside of having to drive past them, the picketing writers are actually kind of easy to ignore once you’re inside.
I don’t really know enough or as I keep mentioning, want to get too deep into a state of affairs which, again, is not really effecting the stuff people watch (…yet), but I clearly found it an interesting enough point to bring up here. While I vaguely remember the strike of 2007-2008, from what I can recall this looked the same. Obviously it’s not the same strike, because the reasons and circumstances change, but it is still a group of people carrying signs, marching out front of the giant arches, foregoing a paycheck in the short term to hopefully get a bigger one in the long term (I’m simplifying of course). And whether one finds the demands reasonable or not, it almost doesn’t matter, because it’s happening. And at some point will probably happen again.
Does it have to though? Is this sequence of events inevitable? It’s almost like Hollywood’s obsession with reboots translates into their labor discrepancies. Wouldn’t you think something would change? That there might be some foresight into preventing these situations? I might’ve even guessed it would if you had asked me a few years ago, in part because of the increasing influence of “creative friendly” places like Netflix. And yet on my drive home I also passed by The Flix’s headquarters and there appeared to be even more writers picketing there than at Paramount. But this actually makes sense based on what I’ve been reading where, fair or not, Netflix has been getting the brunt of the writers’ ire. And the quotes around “creative friendly” aren’t meant to be pejorative either as Netflix was, and maybe still is, seen as the place to give an opportunity to new show / film makers. They were (again, are?) also talked about favorably for letting creators make their stuff with less micromanagement than traditional studios. So it makes it all the more interesting that they are getting called out as the problem by writers. One might’ve thought that Netflix would pull the creative process out of the Hollywood muck that’s been stewing for 100+ years, and yet, it may be Netflix is the one being pulled in…
Ok, I’m going to stop here as I clearly failed at preventing myself from getting “too deep” into a situation I probably shouldn’t even comment on. Not because I’m not allowed (it’s the 2020’s man, every NBA player has a podcast) I just don’t know enough about the circumstances and thus don’t want to insert my large foot (size: 12) into my giant mouth (size: can fit my fist). But maybe if I’m still writing this 15 years from now (Martha Stewart help me) and you’re still reading (please help them Martha, pleeeease) we can dissect the next strike in a bit more detail. But for now I think we should just get into some movies, eh?
Eh.
NEWSY BITS 👾
Why Wes Anderson refuses to watch his TikTok memes [there are duel internet trends aping Anderson’s style - AI mockups of popular movies as directed by Anderson (see: Star Wars, Avatar) and people on TikTok making their life look like one of his movies - he says he wasn’t watched not out of annoyance - he’s actually quite flattered - but to protect his creative sensibilities “I have a feeling I would just feel like, Gosh, is that what I’m doing? So I protect myself.” Well isn’t he adorable (and smart)] - Fast Company
EXTRA CREDIT MOVIE(S) 📝
Past Lives - this is having a limited release that is likely just a few theaters in NY / LA, so I’m going to wait to do a full feature in a few weeks. But if you’re a coastie and into thoughtful (romantic) dramas, be sure to consider this one about a woman who emigrated from South Korea to the US, but reconnects w/ a friend from her past. The reviews are basically in love with it, so they should probably marry it, but if you’re into polyamory, you can too. Playing in Limited Theaters Friday
Shooting Stars - a LeBron James produced movie about the origins of LeBron James (and his high school basketball crew). No reviews, and while it doesn’t look terrible, it does feel a bit “streamer-ish,” which is akin to calling it a TV movie circa 1997, although it definitely has a bigger budget than you would’ve gotten back then. Streaming Friday on Peacock
This movie should be allowed to stand on its own, but it’s hard not to do a little meta narration. And I’m weak. So I have to note that Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (SMASV for - sorta - short) is the perfect counterpoint to all this remake exhaustion discussion. And what better character for it to happen with than Spider-Man, the poster hero (literally) for reboots.
While the coverage around The Little Mermaid in the media has been so much about the same question I posed, and kinda-sorta answered, last week (as in, why did this need to be made?) the discussion around SMASV, just like its forebear (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse) has been focused on how good the damn thing is. I mean, it’s been a while since I’ve seen this level of zeal from critics about a mainstream movie, let alone a superhero one…
“Across The Spider-Verse cranks every dial to 11, and somehow doesn’t collapse in on itself. Visually astonishing, emotionally powerful, narratively propulsive — it’s another masterpiece.” - from the Empire review of SMASV
and
“A smart, thrilling piece of work that reminded me of other great part twos like “The Dark Knight” and “The Empire Strikes Back.” - from the RogerEbert.com review of SMASV
Calling it a “masterpiece” and comparing it to “The Dark Knight,” maybe the most beloved comic book movie of all time? I mean… these are strong words from people who are used to strong words. And yet this is the fourth Spider-Man series in roughly two decades, whereas The Little Mermaid remake came 34 years (yes, you are old1) after the original and the remake discussion here is muted to non-existent in most reviews.
So what has critics’ boxer briefs, panties, briefs, thongs, jock-straps - whatever their chosen undergarments - in a bunch? Well, the most obvious is the thing you can’t escape, the animation. The first movie ushered in an entirely new stylistic format for the oft-bucketed genre that is the animated movie and the melding of 2D and 3D elements has proliferated, evolving what had started to become all too standard since Pixar began its reign. But it seems to be not just the animation tactics they use, but how they use them. Because even if a few reviewers became a bit over-inundated with the story maximization, they always praised the visuals. Another quote:
“a visual language that explodes with expressiveness and imagination, taking gloriously full advantage of every palette, mode and mash-up at its disposal“ - from the Washington Post review of SMASV
And as with most movies, and especially ones with fairly intricate backstories, I prefer to demur when it comes to getting into plot points. I think the most pertinent note here is that you’ll see a lot more of not just Miles Morales (Shameik Moore - who is getting tons of love for his voice work) and Gwen Stacey (Hailee Steinfeld - also loved) but even more Spider-people than the last movie. Because, ya know, “the multiverse.”
And sure, the multiverse thing might feel like it’s a bit played out by this point, but I think the point this movie makes, almost by accident just by existing and intentionally with its story, is that whatever expectations are placed on you, you have the ability to shirk them, no matter who you are.
Out: Thursday
Where: Theaters
2 hrs 20 mins | PG | 🍅: 95%
You might be thinking this is the laziest horror movie title ever conceived. Or maybe I’m just projecting. Because that’s kinda what I thought, and then I learned the movie is (loosely) based on a 1973 short story by Stephen King and was all like, well ok fiiiine, I mean yeah he can call something The Boogeyman and get away with it. But am I just giving King a pass because he’s “Stephen King?” Kinda feels like when you think cars are cool just because of their branding. Like would you give a shit about a Mercedes if you didn’t know it was a Mercedes? Maaaaybe. But you have to admit its image embedded in your neurons has an impact. And while you now know the origins of this melange of madness, the average moviegoer will likely just see it as the latest attempt by Hollywood to scare the pee outta their pee-holes and the money outta their wallet… holes2. Sooooo should you part with your hard earned cash (and, um, urine3)?
Maybe! After all, the studio behind the movie (20th Century, but it’s really just Disney) did the ol’ flippity-floppity on this one, saving it from becoming a part of the dreaded “streaming fodder” contingent to a legit theatrical release after “muscular” test screenings (where they screen for audiences to see what works and what doesn’t). Ok sure, so a few willing subjects placated some studio execs, what about the views of those hard-ass critics? Not terrible actually! It’s worth being reminded that horror movies often face more scrutiny from reviewers who have a tendency to focus on story cohesion whereas fans generally concentrate on whether the movie helps them lose their bodily faculties.
But not unlike my comments on the recent Super Mario Bros. Movie, these kinds of situations shouldn’t be overthought. Sure, there are critics saying the story devolves a bit and it becomes a jump-scare-fest. But isn’t that kinda what most people want from a horror movie? Don’t people want to see two sisters (one of which is Sophie Thatcher, aka young Natalie from Yellowjackets) mourning the loss of their mother, terrorized by a creature who is actually under the bed, while their despondent therapist father (Chris Messina) finds the idea of a demon creature hunting them entirely ridiculous? Probably! Even knowing that both fan and father viewpoints are understandable in context, but that they will result in terror and trauma for those on screen and off, and a whole lot of people double checking - “just to be safe” - that there is nothing creepy under the place where they lay mostly motionless, unconscious to the world, totally susceptible to the whims of… whatever, for 8 hours every night? Even still.
Sleep tiiiight.
🛌 🫣
Out: Friday
Where: Theaters
1 hr 38 min | R | 🍅: 68%
I really like it when I find something in common with trailers so I can come up with a theme for y’all, but that hasn’t been happening recently.
Then again, the upside of that is we get an eclectic mix of movies which is the variety “people” are always asking for, no?
Barbie - a bit more of a look, but it’s still a bit TBD on how it’ll all go down. But Greta Gerwig has the trust. 💪
No Hard Feelings - the first legit mainstream comedy in like a long-ass time, and luckily it looks fun and funny.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem - let’s hope it’s endearing (and as good) as it seems like it might be.
The Persian Version - this is what opening up the movies to more stories looks like. And I like.
The Miracle Club - basically the way more British and sappier version of those Jane Fonda (et al) Book Club movies.
but only if you believe it
I know, a wallet with holes kinda defeats the purpose, but then again, it would make it lighter… hmmm, business opportunity?
not sure how hard earned your urine is, but if it is, you should probably drink more water