MGM »

MGM has been plagued by financial woes for much of their long and illustrious career, but their most recent crisis could end up costing them two of their biggest titles. Nikke Finke of Deadline Hollywood Daily is breathlessly reporting that the studio is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with over $3.5 billion in debt. MGM held a very long conference call with their creditors, pleading with themto waive their interest payments until February 2010, and allow them the cash they need for the rest of the year, particularly to fund its upcoming slate of films. Naturally, some of those are highly anticipated, such as Robocop, The Hobbit, and the latest James Bond installment.

However, MGM's creditors aren't feeling particularly charitable, and may force the studio to file for bankruptcy. If that happens, they could lose James Bond, The Hobbit, and numerous other franchises as MGM would have to sell them to the highest bidder. Right now, they're trying to convince their Scrooges that bankruptcy is the worst possible option, and that Bond and Bilbo are big enough moneymakers to cover their debt. That's where the situation stands now, and it'll certainly be quite the economic spectacle to watch.

I find the news particularly interesting in light of Peter Jackson's remarks on The Hobbit at ComicCon, when he squashed rumors that the film was in the casting stages, and noted that it hadn't even really been green-lit or had its budget approved yet. It was a douse of cold water after a lot of breathless excitement, much of which seemed to come straight from the filmmakers themselves. Could the brakes have been put on because of MGM's financial woes? Possibly.

Continued below the jump

The new remake of Fame will appeal to pre-teens who hope to go to performing arts schools, but who -- implausibly -- have never seen any other movies, or plays, or dance performances or music recitals. Moreover, they must not yet possess the ability to tell good performance from bad, nor truly inspired plot twists from hackneyed ones. Parents, on the other hand, will find that the movie sucks their will to live. It begins with the typical audition sequence, in which thousands of hopefuls show off their talents in front of grim-faced teachers. Whether or not the kids are talented makes no difference; some of the worst performers incredibly make the final cut, and even the best performers chosen aren't about to set the world on fire.

Following that, we meet our instructors, most of them played by talented, slumming actors. Kelsey Grammer plays the music teacher, Megan Mullally teaches singing, Bebe Neuwirth teaches dance and Charles S. Dutton teaches acting. (Debbie Allen, a holdover from the 1980 film, plays the principal.) Each of the teachers tries to impart the concept that each performer needs to find his or her own personality, find out what he or she wants to say, and then find a way to convey that, honestly, through their craft. The movie then completely ignores this advice and gives us a truckload of the usual mainstream, reality TV junk that sells. For example, from the dance class, rather than a ballet ("boorr-ing"), we get a rendition of some rejected "Pussycat Dolls" number, complete with skimpy stockings and strutting. (Not surprisingly, "director" Kevin Tancharoen worked on the "Pussycat Dolls" reality TV show.)

This year marks the 70th anniversary (and a rerelease) of MGM's The Wizard of Oz, which is really quite startling. It's one of those films that's absolutely timeless, and it's so ingrained in each one of our childhood memories that it seems like it was made for our childhoods. If that sounds mawkish, I apologize. To be honest, Oz isn't even one of my favorite movies today, but it rocked my world when I was small, most memorably during its 50th Anniversary in 1989. I know that isn't the first time I saw the film, but I was absolutely enthralled with the little collector book and the documentaries and "deleted scenes" featured on the VHS. It's one of the earliest times I can remember finding out there was a "making of" tale behind a movie I adored, and it struck me as absolutely impossible that the movie was 50 years old. I'm not even sure I was aware
Judy Garland was long gone, though there were certainly enough "if we'd only known" hints in those documentaries.

But I digress. As I said, I outgrew the movie and I was never particularly fond of L. Frank Baum's original book or any of the sequels, though I dutifully read them. (I should take that back -- I adore Marvel's 8-issue run. Beautifully illustrated! Buy it!) I've never known much about Baum beyond his history with the Hotel Del Coronado (he stayed there while writing, and designed the light fixtures!), so Meghan O'Rourke's Slate article on Baum was a treat. I'll leave you to read it for yourselves, but what thrilled me was finding out some of the history, myth, and inspiration behind the book.

Continued below the jump

The terribly handsome Jeffrey Dean Morgan clearly has a thing for action, adventure, and DC comic books. Collider sat down with him last weekend, and Mr. Morgan let slip that he's stepping into the Red Dawn remake. (He also let slip a few f-bombs that he shouldn't have told anyone, but we're glad he did, aren't we?) "I guess I'm more or less the old Powers Boothe character ... I'll be the old guy in it, which is cool ... I'm very much looking forward to it. But I'm going straight from here to Detroit which I can't imagine at this point."

Morgan also planted the first flag when it came to playing the part of Lobo, soon to be the star of a Guy Ritchie film. "That would be cool. Lobo would be very cool. I don't think that I'm as big as Lobo is, but if you could, like, transplant Mickey Rourke's body on my head, that would be just great. But I don't know. It's an untapped world for me as well. Every time I kind of hear about something I go out and get the book or I look it up on one of your guys' sites. We'll see."

Well, if he's reading this one -- Mr. Morgan, I suggest that you try to nab an audition for Jesse Custer. He's one of the few American actors that has the right amount of grit. Or do a reversal on The Comedian and play the ever-so-good Captain Marvel / Shazam. Or jump the DC ship and try out a little Dark Horse with Fear Agent. Lobo sounds cool from afar, but you've already got the biggest DC badass under your belt with the Comedian. Go with something more charming.

Just before I get started I want to make one thing perfectly clear: this fan rant has nothing to do with me hating remakes in principle. Instead, this rant is about fame (as a movie and a concept) and a disturbing trend I noticed in the marketing for the shiny new Fame hitting theaters this fall. So let's start at the beginning, shall we? I was surfing channels whey I first happened across the latest trailer for the musical update that does a little cross-promotion with the boy-wizard, Harry Potter. So as I sat there watching this bizarre combination of Hogwarts and The School of Performing Arts, it occurred to me that this trailer seemed to almost being equating 'fame' with magic. This new version of Fame seemed to have none of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice (except of the mildest teen-angst ways imaginable) of the original -- and that's when I started to get a little ticked.

Alan Parker's Fame was a part of a larger trend in the late 70s and 80s to make 'grittier' musicals (along with films like A Chorus Line or Fosse's All That Jazz) that took the "let's put on a show" tradition of musicals and revealed all of it's flaws and the screwed-up people who inhabited the business of making fantasy. What made Fame (1980) such a stand-out for me as a young girl was that suddenly the idea of stardom didn't seem so great. Instead, it became a deal with the devil, and Parker's film seemed to keep that idea under the surface of the uplifting finale and songs about lunch programs.

After the jump: why a Fame remake has me so worked up, and a glimpse of the film that started it all...

There are a few advantages to being a Canadian: we've got great beer, not to mention we've got that whole free healthcare thing going on. But if I had to choose one reason why I love my country, it would be that CBC made sure that I got to see Nelvana's Rock & Rule the way it was meant to be.

Rock & Rule was the story of a fading rock god by the name of Mok (who's a little bit Bowie and a little bit Iggy) with an apocalyptic plan for immortality. His diabolical scheme consists of unleashing a demon by finding the perfect voice, and where might that voice be? Well, that's where a down-on-their-luck band headed by two young lovers by the names of Angel and Omar come in.

The film nearly bankrupted Nelvana and in order to get the film into US theaters, MGM/UA demanded script changes and different voice actors. But that's what you get for messing with perfection, because the film never found an audience stateside after being released under the unfortunate name, Ring of Power. Luckily the movie has found a cult following over the years and you can now find the original version on DVD.

After the jump: my favorite song from Rock & Rule and another Nelvana classic, The Devil and Daniel Mouse...

It's very popular to hate on princesses right now thanks to Disney and their frenzied marketing, but there's nothing wrong with a good fairy tale once and awhile, especially if they're served up with a bit of snark. So, I have some hope for Once Upon a Time, an Enchanted sort of story that's being set up at MGM. It's moving pretty quickly too. The script was snapped up in March, and now The Hollywood Reporter says that Mike Mitchell is coming on board to lend his Shrek-honed skills to the fantasy flick.

The story follows three famous princesses: Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Cinderella, who have settled down in domestic bliss with their Prince Charmings, and are prepared to live happily ever after. But the Charming Brothers go missing (clearly, they're charming, but they lack street smarts) and our pretty sisters-in-law must team up, and set out to save their true loves. But a woman's job is never done, and they also have to save their fairy tale kingdom in the process.

It's a live action film, and THR notes that MGM is aiming for a Shrek and Enchanted level of satire. This almost feels like a Shrek spinoff, as all three princesses keep getting more and more screen time in the neverending ogre franchise. Hopefully it'll mix the best of Shrek with a dash of Ever After and Enchanted, and give girls some new princess costumes to wear on Halloween. Ones with swords.

Since I'm resigned to the fact that everything is going to be remade sooner or later, the best I can hope for is that at least studios will hire people who know what they're doing. On that note, there's a ray of hope for MGM's Red Dawn remake because Latino Review reports that Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) has been hired to do a rewrite. I've got nothing against the project's original scribe, Carl Ellsworth, but if I had to choose between the two, I would much rather go with the writer of those Bourne films than the writer of Disturbia.

Yesterday, it was announced that Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki will star alongside Chris Hemsworth (Star Trek) in the tale of a group of teens turned militia men better known as the Wolverines. According to THR, Hemsworth will play the group's leader, Jed Eckert (originally played by Patrick Swayze), and Peck will be reprising Charlie Sheen's role as Jed's younger brother, with Palicki filling in for Jennifer Grey as the tough-as-nails fighter and love interest for Jed. In the original film, our heroes went up against invading Communist hoards, but for the update it has been changed from Communists to a more generic threat of Russian and Chinese military.

Now I've decided that I won't get worked up about a remake unless the movie was good in the first place, and unfortunately my love of Dawn is more about nostalgia than the film itself. But you can't deny it's become a little outdated over the years (is anyone that worried about Communist invaders anymore?) -- but Gilroy has a way with smart action films, so I'll remain optimistic that he can pull it off ... how about you?

Red Dawn is scheduled to arrive in theaters in 2010.

If anything can make you forget the disappointment of Quantum of Solace, it's the news that James Bond 23 has taken the first big steps into production. No, that's not casting Bond girls or plotting explosions, but writing the script. Not surprisingly, producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have looked again to the cream of Britain's film crop and hired a man who's gotten some attention at the Oscars lately: Peter Morgan. Few of his scripts have gone wrong (The Other Boleyn Girl is one mark on an otherwise impeccable record .. and even then, it's not that bad) and he'll definitely lend a lot of gravitas to the project. A lot.

Morgan won't be penning 23 solo, however. He's got some old hands in
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (the pens behind both Quantum and Casino Royale), who are returning to the franchise ... and well, so long Paul Haggis. I guess he's taking the fall for Quantum.

So, now to find that new director. Rumors swirled that Danny Boyle had been offered the job, but that was quickly shot down by Boyle in an e-mail to EW. While it's always possible he could duck in once the script is done, we need to look to the rest of the United Kingdom ... and possibly to Morgan himself, who is about to make his directorial debut with The Special Relationship.

It sounds too good to be true. Three Hollywood studios (Paramount, Lionsgate, and MGM) plan to introduce a new service called Epix that will be available online and on television. Epix will feature recent titles from the three studios in high definition before they're released on DVD or Blu-ray, without commercial interruption, and without charge to the consumer. Sign me up, right? Big surprise: there is a catch. Or two, actually.

As explained at ars technica, the films will be available in the "pay-TV window," after the theatrical release concludes and before the title hits DVD. Epix wants to convince cable TV operators to bundle their network into an already-existing package, and thus avoid a separate, additional monthly fee. No partners have been announced yet. That's the first catch.

Here's the second: if you want to watch the films online, on demand, via EpixHD.com, you have to subscribe to the same provider's Internet offering. In the words of ars technica: "If Comcast were to offer Epix, users would need to pay for both Comcast cable and Comcast Internet in order to access the streaming, on-demand service. That's good for Comcast, and it helps them cover the cost of the service." That may be good for the cable operators, but if you're like me and have satellite service and/or DSL, you're out of luck.

EpixHD.com is "currently in private beta" and, contrary to what is stated in ars technica, there is no way I see for private citizens to sign up. The site says "library classics" will be available in addition to newer titles. More free movies are always welcome, though I wonder how widespread Epix will become.

[via Gizmodo]