la times Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Bill Lobdell, longtime writer and editor for the Tribune-owned LA Times and its subsidiaries, has an excellent, insightful piece up on his new blog titled "42 Things I Know," outlining why exactly he left his cushy corporate job and what's wrong over at the LA Times. Much of what Lobdell has to say is pretty much what those of us who work in new media have been saying for a long time now: that print media (in particular, the overfed layers of managers who spend most of their days having meetings about meetings so they can plan more meetings, thereby justifying their spendy salary-and-benefits packages) don't know what the hell they're doing when it comes to the real world in the age of the Internet.

The most telling of Lobdell's "42 Things" are the following:

Newspapers were unbelievably slow in embracing the Internet, even though younger reporters have been pleading with their bosses for years to embrace the Web.

Amazingly, it took until 2005 for top editors at The Times to realize the Internet not only wasn't going away but might lead to the demise of newspaper.

Prior to that, the Internet operation at The Times was used as a place to hide reporters and editors who had fallen out of favor.

In covering the San Diego ComicCon, Geoff Boucher's Los Angeles Times blog notes that writer-director John August will not be in attendance, since he's toiling away on New Line's film adaptation of Shazam!, the Captain Marvel movie. As has been reported, Jake Gyllenhaal and The Rock are two possible candidates to play the superhero, possibly in the before and after transformation. The Captain is a crippled newsboy named Billy Batson who is endowed by a Dumbledorish wizard to transform himself into a mighty scarlet-clad superhero. Captain Marvel has been on screen since the Republic serial of 1941 when Tom Tyler played him, even though Captain Marvel looks awfully like Fred MacMurray in C. C. Beck's classic comic books. In August's own blog, the perennial collaborator with Tim Burton (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Big Fish, et al) tried to describe his own geek-free vision of what's going on. He includes a cheat sheet to describe some of the better moments in print with the Big Red Cheese...none of the comic book pics include Frank Miller's DK 2, where Miller proposed an interesting theory: That Captain Marvel's alter-ego Billy Batson could die of old age, leaving him trapped in that big torso and doorman's costume.

Boucher talks about August's provocative remarks, but here's the entire quote from August's blog (words that will really make the old-time fans of Captain Marvel wish they had a large Styrofoam boulder to throw at him): "Every time I read one of these [comic books]," says August, "I'm struck with the same realization I encounter trying to watch The Honeymooners or a black-and-white movie. Wow. Old thing suck." He goes on to add: "... Old-time comic books were awkwardly written, crudely drawn, and bewilderingly inconsistent with their rules. They were making up the art form as they went along, and today's comic books are better for the accumulated wisdom." The breezy inconsistency between an art form sucking and yet having accumulated wisdom bypasses August. One had to be grateful for the correspondent who wrote into August saying "Pretty harsh words from the guy who wrote the film version of Charlie's Angels" ... even if he did put a smiley emoticon next to it. Check out the LA Times story for more on the movie, including when it's set, what Captain Marvel will look like and who might play villain.

Edited to correct quote.

Odds and ends from Friday:

• The James Brown rumor mill is definitely heating up (and, personally, I'm on fire with anticipation) -- first came word that Usher was interested in the role, and now we're hearing Samuel L. Jackson's name passed around. Sam Jackson as James Brown? What's next, Spike Lee steps from behind the camera for a little diddy action? Hey, I love Jackson just as much as the next Star Wars prequel mega-fan, but you really expect me to believe the man has that many moves? Seriously now, how about we start throwing some real talent in this already rocky wave pool.
• Brad Pitt? His career in trouble? Say it ain't so, David Thompson. Oh, he says plenty: "But Pitt is utterly exposed. He hasn't had a release since Mr & Mrs Smith, and Babel in 10 weeks has earned about $20m (£10.2m) and is playing at 250 theatres across the nation. The way he's fading away at the age of 43, he could be an actress." Ouch. While Thompson does make some good points (Damon and DiCaprio are hitting their strides, while Pitt is too lost saving the world alongside his wife), I am of the opinion the man still has some juice left ... and if we have to wait another year (and for another David Fincher film) to witness the re-birth of Pitt 2.0, so be it.
• The LA Times recently asked a number of online film folks to give us the 411 on 2007 and -- whaddya know -- Cinematical's Kim Voynar and Erik Davis (wait, that's me!) managed to throw in our four cents on the new year and the Hollywood dreck that lies ahead. Nah, not all of it looks bad (we think, and hope) -- Kim said Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has tremendous "flop potential," while I went ahead and gave Evan Almighty the award for "The Biggest Disappointment We Saw Coming From a Mile Away." Hey, but there's always another Pixar film to look forward to ...

[First two stories came via Hollywood Wiretapp]

Last week, the LA Times featured an article called, "Did the Snakes Hiss Too Soon." Based on this weekend's box office numbers (and having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that yours truly is -- ahem -- mentioned in the article), I'm wondering if the film's "genius" marketing campaign ultimately ruined its chances of making any kind of serious money.

In the last Monday Morning Poll, I asked you how much money Snakes on a Plane would make in its opening weekend. Most of you went nuts with that figure, spitting out extremely high numbers ($40-50 million). Well, the little film that couldn't took home a heck of a lot less. But, why? As the LA Times article ponders: Did the hype peak too soon? Was the marketing geared towards a certain type of individual, thus eliminating a huge audience? With the film hitting theaters this late in summer, are people simply tired of the crap?

So, I ask you: Why did Snakes on a Plane tank at the box office?

OK, here's the short version. Paramount and the L.A. Times decided it might be nifty to jam a little music box into 4,500 of the newspaper's sales machines, one that would treat you to a tiny, tinny rendition of the Mission: Impossible theme if you, movie fan or not, happened to purchase a newspaper. And nobody stopped to consider that if one of those little music boxes were jarred loose (Really, don't folks let those newspaper machines just SLAM shut?), then one unfortunate paper-buyer might open said machine and discover something that looks ... a lot ... like a ... bomb.

Granted, a bomb that plays the Mission: Impossible theme probably isn't all that hazardous, but let's cut right to the meat of the matter:

Movie marketing is freakin' ridiculous already. I mean ... are you MORE likely to go see Mission: Impossible 3 (on May 5th!) if your local paper machine is chirping its theme song? Does the fact that Lalo Schifrin's eponymous theme song has been permanently seared into your brain-stem make you want to see Tom Cruise's latest actionfest? ("Hey honey, I previously had no interest whatsoever in seeing Mission: Impossible 3, directed by Lost's J.J. Abrams, but after buying that fantastic copy of The L.A. Times ... I now, strangely, feel more likely to purchase several tickets ... and on opening weekend, too! Oh, let's go over to Best Buy right now and ask if they have Impossible Missions 1 and 2 on DVD!")

Yeah, so the L.A. bomb squad was called, they blew up the paper machine (an ironic thing for a bomb squad to do, but there you have it) and discovered that the nefarious-looking doo-hickey was merely an expensive toy from Paramount ... and the studio got a nice big dose of extra publicity because of it. Apparently it was all part of Paramount's plan to "turn the 'everyday news rack experience' into an 'extraordinary mission'. " -- to which I'd humbly respond "just gimme my freakin' newspaper and quit trying to brainwash me."

Mission: Impossible 3, which I'm looking forward to AND sick to death of at the same time, opens on May 5th.

It's true - along with everyone else who covers the movies in any capacity, we here at Cinematical are officially in an Oscar Frenzy. Questions and speculation are flying around our lovely Manhattan office - Is Brokeback Mountain peaking too soon? Why is Munich not getting any awards? Will a giant ape rule the world? And are those bitches at the Academy going to stiff The Squid and the Whale just because it's small and sort of difficult? It's fun but, you know, also a little mind-numbing.

But there is an alternative - if you feel like you'll kill the next person who says the phrase "gay cowboys" but can't get enough of Academy Awards speculation, head on over to to the Los Angeles Times' Oscar blog and talk about next year's front runners. Yes, it's true: everyone has completely lost their minds. On what are they basing their beliefs that Dreamgirls - which has yet to EVEN START FILMING - is going to be good enough to get nominated? Or Borgia? At this point, who knows if Colin Farrell will even make it out or rehab? I mean, come on, people. Fun is fun, but this is insane.