SHOO FLY, DON’T BOTHER FOX

I'll remain hopeful about EASTERN PROMISES 2. And I'll even go so far as to say I liked EP more than HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, despite getting to see all of Maria Bello's goodies in the latter.

No surprise here, it's Fox after all.

Well, yes, with FOX it's no surprise. However, while I'm a bit curious what Cronenberg had cooking up, I'm kind of glad his FLY will remain a singular experience. That film is so perfect, I don't think I needed anything more on the subject from him. Maybe it could have been greatness, but maybe this was a bullet dodged

I wonder how the hell he could write a sequel without it seeming forced...another dude got caught in a teleporter with another fly?  This isn't Die Hard.  I'm sure he's written something far less retarded, I'm just curious as to the set up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

No surprise here, it's Fox after all.

I dunno, after FIRST CLASS and RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, I was quietly hoping they were getting their shit together when it comes to genre stuff. Oh well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Allen 

 

I dunno, after FIRST CLASS and RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, I was quietly hoping they were getting their shit together when it comes to genre stuff. Oh well...

I give them no credit for FIRST CLASS. If anything, I blame them for ruining an amazing MAGNETO film with the stupid teenage nonsense. The film worked because of Vaughn, but FOX hardly gave the film a budget or development time, and forced the script to include a bunch of nonsense designed to appeal to the TWILIGHT demo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Allen 

 

I dunno, after FIRST CLASS and RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, I was quietly hoping they were getting their shit together when it comes to genre stuff. Oh well...

Yeah but I'm sure Cronenberg wrote a brilliant, subversive script like he did the first time around, and they were looking for something thirteen year old boys would go see...like The Fly 2.  The Fly was definitely lightning in a bottle, and Cronenberg isn't Lucas....he still needs a greenlight from a studio.  This honestly never stood a chance.

This is exactly what I hate about the corporate mindset.  I'm sure Fox would gladly hand over The Fly to some idiotic 21-year-old with a few "hit" youtubes and a music video under his belt with a script by some nepotism-anointed hack.  Argh.

I suspect The Thing prequel bombing had something to do with this cancellation as well.

To be fair, Cronenberg doesn't make it seem as though the decision is final, just more of a "they don't plan to go with it at this time".  That said, I'll be surprised if it gets made...............as depressing as that is.

I think one of the problems is that they always expect the impossible. The Friday and Nightmare remakes did near 100 million dollar each. Which are fantastic numbers for those movies, but they actually expected more. Way more. I don't know what would have satisfied them. 300m? Everyone knows Jason, everyone likes Jason, but that doesn't mean all of them would go and pay a ticket for the twelfth movie in the series. Everyone knows Chuck Norris. A Lone Wolf McQuade 2 would still not set the box office on fire.

Yeah, a late The Fly 3 could work. But that would have to be done with a budget that makes a 40m max gross a success. And producers don't like to aim that low.

Well the original Fly didn't set the world on fire.  It was popular, but nothing that would lead a sequel to being competitive in today's market.  I don't really understand what these studios are thinking these days.  Give Cronenberg a small budget and let him go to town.  On the original, Mel Brooks ran the show and hired Cronenberg and told him "don't hold back", and we got a masterpiece.  There's nobody at the studio right now that's shepherding this other than probably low level execs who don't care about filmmakers. 

As I mentioned elsewhere, doesn't "David Cronenberg's return to horror/his biggest horror film" kind of market itself? And he's the only guy from that old guard who is still growing as a filmmaker. But I bet his script was some left-field art house shit that Fox wasn't looking for with this title. It's a shame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

As I mentioned elsewhere, doesn't "David Cronenberg's return to horror/his biggest horror film" kind of market itself? And he's the only guy from that old guard who is still growing as a filmmaker. But I bet his script was some left-field art house shit that Fox wasn't looking for with this title. It's a shame.

I honestly don't think most people who go to movies know who he is. Sad but true

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

I honestly don't think most people who go to movies know who he is. Sad but true

Maybe not his name, but what he's done lately, alot of people saw his last two films.

All they have to do is say "from the director of A History Of Violence and Eastern Promises comes his return to horror in...THE FLY 3...if you don't know what I'm talking about just kill yourself now, you're hopeless!!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Maybe not his name, but what he's done lately, alot of people saw his last two films.

 

All they have to do is say "from the director of A History Of Violence and Eastern Promises comes his return to horror in...THE FLY 3...if you don't know what I'm talking about just kill yourself now, you're hopeless!!!"

Those sorts of credits are very hit or miss when it comes to getting people to go to the theater. You can have Peter Jackson himself coming off of LOTR to do KING KONG, and people still might not even care enough to get it above 60 million dollars opening weekend

HISTORY, PROMISES.. those movies, while good and appreciated by many movie fans, are not well known with the general public, and certainly not enough of a draw to really get the people who liked those to turn out for a sequel to THE FLY. FLY fans would go, but I doubt many who enjoyed Cronenberg's latest movies would be interested. Fox would want to go after the teenage horror demo, and for them, they have never heard of THE FLY, and Cronenberg's involvement wouldn't really matter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 
Fox would want to go after the teenage horror demo, and for them, they have never heard of THE FLY, and Cronenberg's involvement wouldn't really matter

Yeah, but that's exactly what Universal used for The Thing prequel, aimed mostly at those who may have never heard of the original as a straight horror flick to see on a Friday night, and somewhat to those who know the original.

Granted The Thing prequel didn't do so well, but that's because it was a reboot to a franchise many haven't heard of.  If they actually made a Fly SEQUEL, as in The Fly 3, or Reborn or whatever people not familiar with the original (most of the target demographic) would be more likely to be curious, because it's a continuation on something they're not familiar with, rather than a reboot where you can just ignore the original like The Thing.  And people DO NOT like to be behind the curve; they'd be curious and probably investigate the original or ask their older friends about the original and check it out opening weekend.  And the fans of the Fly would obviously be there. 

I feel like with The Thing prequel, not enough emphasis was placed on the original...they made it just seem like some random horror movie with a stupid title (tweens today probably hate the title as it makes very little sense until you see the film), so its no surprise it bombed.  If Fox plays up the SEQUEL angle on this with the original helmer returning to form, those youngsters who loved the violence in History and Eastern would probably dig up Cronenberg's older stuff and tell their friends and at least go opening weekend, while those who already know the deal would be a lock too.  Fox really needs to use Cronenberg as the selling tool for this, it could work.

But studios dont like to gamble these days, sadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

 

Yeah, but that's exactly what Universal used for The Thing prequel, aimed mostly at those who may have never heard of the original as a straight horror flick to see on a Friday night, and somewhat to those who know the original.

 

Granted The Thing prequel didn't do so well, but that's because it was a reboot to a franchise many haven't heard of.  If they actually made a Fly SEQUEL, as in The Fly 3, or Reborn or whatever people not familiar with the original (most of the target demographic) would be more likely to be curious, because it's a continuation on something they're not familiar with, rather than a reboot where you can just ignore the original like The Thing.  And people DO NOT like to be behind the curve; they'd be curious and probably investigate the original or ask their older friends about the original and check it out opening weekend.  And the fans of the Fly would obviously be there. 

 

I feel like with The Thing prequel, not enough emphasis was placed on the original...they made it just seem like some random horror movie with a stupid title (tweens today probably hate the title as it makes very little sense until you see the film), so its no surprise it bombed.  If Fox plays up the SEQUEL angle on this with the original helmer returning to form, those youngsters who loved the violence in History and Eastern would probably dig up Cronenberg's older stuff and tell their friends and at least go opening weekend, while those who already know the deal would be a lock too.  Fox really needs to use Cronenberg as the selling tool for this, it could work.

 

But studios dont like to gamble these days, sadly.

 

I get what you're saying, but I just disagree. I don't think even in a best case scenario there would have been much of an audience for a THING movie, unless the movie was really really good and stood by itself. Hollywood is desperate, and anything that has existed in some form before is viewed as having built in hype. I no longer buy that argument. To me a given film being part of a 'series' just makes it more tired, and means I'll need additional reasons to get myself interested. The snake is eating it's own tail, and in an age where everything is a rebootquel or pseudo sequel or whatever, being part of a "franchise" is no longer special or much of a draw. If anything, it's become a sign the film will be crippled in it's story telling, relying entirely on the audiences built in emotions and feelings towards characters and concepts (like in the latest FAST FIVE movie) rather than develop a plot that exists on it's own
 

I think if alot of those teens you mentioned watched the FLY, they might like it  (or maybe not, I don't really understand the young), but there are definitely not enough of those sorts of people to make the movie a hit. Look at what does mega business. It's all TRANSFORMERS and TWILIGHT. The FLY 3 would never have been a big event with the morons who made those other films huge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

I get what you're saying, but I just disagree. I don't think even in a best case scenario there would have been much of an audience for a THING movie, unless the movie was really really good and stood by itself. Hollywood is desperate, and anything that has existed in some form before is viewed as having built in hype. I no longer buy that argument. To me a given film being part of a 'series' just makes it more tired, and means I'll need additional reasons to get myself interested. The snake is eating it's own tail, and in an age where everything is a rebootquel or pseudo sequel or whatever, being part of a "franchise" is no longer special or much of a draw. If anything, it's become a sign the film will be crippled in it's story telling, relying entirely on the audiences built in emotions and feelings towards characters and concepts (like in the latest FAST FIVE movie) rather than develop a plot that exists on it's own
 

 

I think if alot of those teens you mentioned watched the FLY, they might like it  (or maybe not, I don't really understand the young), but there are definitely not enough of those sorts of people to make the movie a hit. Look at what does mega business. It's all TRANSFORMERS and TWILIGHT. The FLY 3 would never have been a big event with the morons who made those other films huge

 

There are no absolutes in the film business.

You're making alot of assumptions.  That would be okay if it were in favor of Cronenberg getting a greenlight.  My argument is that Hollywood wastes so much money on hit or miss bullshit that has far lower odds of being successful anyway, why is it therefore so hard to give a hit and miss scenario with greater odds of succeeding a chance?  We're not talking much money either.  That's my problem with Hollywood, they know nothing, but pretend to know everything.  Their arrogance and outright disrespect of true talent is a pretty sickening to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

There are no absolutes in the film business.

 

You're making alot of assumptions.  That would be okay if it were in favor of Cronenberg getting a greenlight.  My argument is that Hollywood wastes so much money on hit or miss bullshit that has far lower odds of being successful anyway, why is it therefore so hard to give a hit and miss scenario with greater odds of succeeding a chance?  We're not talking much money either.  That's my problem with Hollywood, they know nothing, but pretend to know everything.  Their arrogance and outright disrespect of true talent is a pretty sickening to me.

 

We don't disagree. If it's a question of "do I think FOX should give Cronenberg some money to make a movie?", then of course my answer is yes. It could be no worse than much of the dreck they thoughtlessly spew upon the market. Maybe it would be really good, and make it's money back down the line with continued home video sales

I'm just saying that I don't agree that Cronenberg's name is any indicator whatsoever of a strong opening weekend for the studios. EASTERN PROMISES and HISTORY OF VIOLENCE were good movies. However, if HISTORY was the debut of a first time director, and PROMISES his follow up, with none of the Cronenberg cred attached, I think they'd have been exactly as well received and watched by the same numbers of people. They were bad ass adult thrillers with Viggo. That is why they succeeded and why they're acclaimed. I love Cronenberg, but most people who buy tickets to movies have no clue about directors, much less one as relatively obscure as him. And the tactic of "from the director of!" just is not a reliable way to market a film, even when the "of ___" in question is one of the biggest most beloved films ever. HISTORY is well liked and well regarded, but I bet the non movie obsessing public has forgotten it entirely by this point. His name isn't a commodity with non movie people. That's just the truth

So yes, Cronenberg could make a good movie that would continue bringing in funds for decades as it's fan base grows. However, studios have said flat out they don't want that kind of business. Look at what the head of UNIVERSAL said about Del Torro's MOUNTAINS. He said it would make money, just not fast enough to sate the greed of current execs. That is the basic problem with this country. Save the planet? Sure, people generations from now will be grateful not to be living in a wasteland, and businesses will benefit from the world not being a hell hole.. but the humans at the top right now don't care about the future, they just want to make their fortune NOW and get out

Same for film. The studio heads don't care about building a cinematic legacy of excellence. They just want to make the next TRANSFORMERS and cash out. There is no longer a pretense that this is a business about art. It's all product now, and Cronenberg as a brand is at best a local specialty soda - he's no coke. So while Cronenberg might make a good movie, that would be profitable, it's unrealistic to expect these brigands to do anything other than pillage comic books and 80s TV shows for the fastest bucks they can squeeze from them, since those are the surest bets in the room

They have no long term vision, and no legitimate interest in film. So yes it's infuriating how Cronenberg gets shit on, but to expect anything else from the suits raping our culture is silly. They've put their cards on the table, to expect anything different is self delusion
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

 

I'm just saying that I don't agree that Cronenberg's name is any indicator whatsoever of a strong opening weekend for the studios. EASTERN PROMISES and HISTORY OF VIOLENCE were good movies. However, if HISTORY was the debut of a first time director, and PROMISES his follow up, with none of the Cronenberg cred attached, I think they'd have been exactly as well received and watched by the same numbers of people. They were bad ass adult thrillers with Viggo. That is why they succeeded and why they're acclaimed. I love Cronenberg, but most people who buy tickets to movies have no clue about directors, much less one as relatively obscure as him. And the tactic of "from the director of!" just is not a reliable way to market a film, even when the "of ___" in question is one of the biggest most beloved films ever. HISTORY is well liked and well regarded, but I bet the non movie obsessing public has forgotten it entirely by this point. His name isn't a commodity with non movie people. That's just the truth

 

I dunno, plenty of famous directors names open films all the time.  "The 4/5/6th Film By Quentin Tarantino" does wonders.  "From Michael Bay" gets asses in seats.  Same with Spielberg, Lucas, Jackson and Cameron.  People know these names and they go the cinema because their name is on something, in conjuction with the level spectacle in the trailer.  Even lesser knowns like Wes Craven, Eli Roth, Guy Ritchie, and Darren Aronofsky; their names are box office commodities in some form or another.  People do know directors, they just don't spend as much time talking about them as fanboys. 

Now Croneberg's name isn't in that league and I know that.  What I'm saying is, Fox has the potential to pique people's interest in a man who's been on a big win streak for the last few years.  We're not talking huge numbers here, it doesn't have to open at $80 million.  The Fly movies were low key productions with gore porn as the main selling selling tool.  Gore porn is still fairly hot.  Combine that with those who liked History and Eastern in terms of violence (teenage boys) or just good filmmaking (everyone else), and you have the potential to catch lightning in a bottle twice.  It's not that difficult.  The public can be fickle, but also amazingly gullible.  Studios use this tactic all the time to sell movies.  They promote The Fly 3 as a sequel to a beloved horror classic from the original director of the first movie who happened to direct two popular violent movies recently.  Immediately those who don't know Cronenberg's work well, will investigate to see what they're behind on.  The internet is ubiquitous like that.  Those who know The Fly are there, and probably telling their lesser educated friends to go with them ('you wont be dissapointed", etc).  At the same time you boost dvd and blu ray sales/rentals of The Fly, and its all snowballing from there.

That's a workable strategy in my opinion.  No less workable than any of the other stupid promotions Hollywood regularly shoots in the fucking dark with.  You don't agree, I get that.  No big deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

I think one of the problems is that they always expect the impossible. The Friday and Nightmare remakes did near 100 million dollar each. Which are fantastic numbers for those movies, but they actually expected more. Way more. I don't know what would have satisfied them. 300m? Everyone knows Jason, everyone likes Jason, but that doesn't mean all of them would go and pay a ticket for the twelfth movie in the series. Everyone knows Chuck Norris. A Lone Wolf McQuade 2 would still not set the box office on fire.

 

Yeah, a late The Fly 3 could work. But that would have to be done with a budget that makes a 40m max gross a success. And producers don't like to aim that low.

I'm still legitimately shocked that the studios haven't pumped out handfuls of sequels to all the remakes that have actually done well.  Halloween, Piranha, Hills Have Eyes, and Texas Chainsaw are the only ones that managed to garner follow-ups..............and even then they haven't made it past Film 2 (yet).  Not that I am clamoring to be flooded with sequels (I'm not!).

Where is Dawn of the Dead 2?  My Bloody Valentine 2?  Friday The 13th 2?  A Nightmare On Elm Street 2?  The last one I can understand, due to the horrible drubbing it took from fans and critics alike...............but I'm honestly surprised that the first three haven't come to fruition.  As for the ones that did get sequels?  Hills Have Eyes 2 didn't do so hot.  I don't recall Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning really setting the box office on fire.  Piranha 3DD is likely going to be dumped into theaters just like the first one was.  Halloween 2 was a disappointment for the Weinsteins and the third one seems to be having a really hard time getting off the ground.

Dawn of the Dead aside (which I don't think was intended to ignite a franchise), what was the point of remaking all of these if they never really had any intention of following through and pumping out sequels?  Why not just sequelize the original franchise and call it a day?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

As I mentioned elsewhere, doesn't "David Cronenberg's return to horror/his biggest horror film" kind of market itself?

Sadly, no.  The only people it would mean anything to would be the ones that are already salivating to see it anyway (aka us).  Cronenberg, Carpenter, Romero, etc.............none of them mean anything to the current "young" generation.  That mainly has to do with the fact that none of them has hit it big over the past decade.  That's not to say that Cronenberg hasn't been churning out quality work.  He pretty much always has.  For better or worse, David pretty much left the horror genre behind in the '80s and because of that his name doesn't mean much outside of cinephiles and horror fanatics.  I'd argue that the only one of that generation whose name is recognizable to the general populace these days is Wes Craven...............and even that didn't help Scream 4 make big money.

It's hard to understand because we do see the potential and would be satisfied with more entries, but making a remake of a classic is a great idea financially. Making sequels to them, not.

Besides being more easily advertisable, as the title has already recognition, a remake of a classic sparks interest. Many who liked the old movies come out of curiosity, mostly to see how the new one misses the point. On the other hand, many don't know all the classics, but feel as if they have to. And they can't stand 'old' so they are happy about a new take with a modern aesthetic. So both want to see it.

The old folks go in and feel confirmed. Many felt that the ANOES remake wasn't creative enough. The Texas remake not intense enough. The Jason remake not crazy enough. Even if the movie, as a horror movie, or compared to other entries in the franchise, is good, they'll not be satisfied unless the movie turns out to be as awesome and memorable as the original and best movies of the franchises. The only recent horror remake I can think of people really loved and see as a modern classic is THE RING. None of the others got there.

The young folks have heard a dozen times that the ANOES guy is an unforgettable horror icon and so great that people still celebrate him 20 years after his birth on the big screen. So they get in... and at best, witness a movie that is good. Good, but not amazing. And so they're letdown too, because they expected big and awesome and memorable and classy. That is why it doesn't matter that each of them did 100m. They know it doesn't work twice in a row, and they're not interested in earning less than that. They're big producers, eager to do the next 100m+ movie next instead of continueously earning 10m on sequel after sequel.

 I bet most of the producers never had any actual intentions of doing, say, four theatrical parts of The Hills have Eyes, or putting Derek Mears in a Friday 7, even before doing the movie. In the 80ies and 90ies, horror movies were way cheaper and aimed at the die hard fans who'd go every fucking year. Great times. I wish it still was like that. By now I'd loved to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5 and Dawn of the Dead 4 and Another Friday the 13th. Who doesn't love Jason goes to Manhattan, Halloween VI? Ugly, but still part of the family. I'd rather see weaker entries instead of restarting the franchises over and over again every 10-15 years. Because that's what's going to happen.

While I'd never expect a new Friday The 13th franchise to make it to 8 entries, I wouldn't have been shocked to see it hit 3.  I guess I just find it odd that we were given 5 Final Destinations and 7 Saws........................but no one has bothered to try and sequel the hell out of all the reboots.

It also should have hit 3 by this year. I was expecting that reboot to re-start the original franchise that basically did a movie a year first. Nightmare On Elm Street was the second.

Count me in as another that is pissed over Fox's dumb move. Hopefully someone there will convince the higher ups to let him do the movie.

The budget of the last Friday was 20 million dollars. I bet there are many talented non A-list directors who'd be able to do a satisfying theatrical Friday for 5. Maybe that wouldn't ever gross 90m, but if it does 20 it's already a good success. Repeat that five years in a row and you can buy yourself a well deserved house in Beverly Hills. Especially if the small core group of fans stays on and watches one every damn year. Just make it fun by having original kills, tits and references to the older movies.

I think the remake tried to hard to be taken seriously. Jason needs to kill people by guitar, not by stabbing with a screwdriver. I really think this can be an ongoing sucess, they just need to aim lower.

Agreed on all counts, especially with this bit..........
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Especially if the small core group of fans stays on and watches one every damn year. Just make it fun by having original kills, tits and references to the older movies.

The Saw franchise DEFINITELY proved this and we all know that everyone really just watched them for the traps.

We really do need a crazy annual slasher franchise again.  It's a shame that Lionsgate didn't keep My Bloody Valentine rolling as a franchise.............though there is still time to rectify that mistake.  Same goes for Friday, though it seems Platinum Dunes has little interest in making horror movies anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

The budget of the last Friday was 20 million dollars. I bet there are many talented non A-list directors who'd be able to do a satisfying theatrical Friday for 5. Maybe that wouldn't ever gross 90m, but if it does 20 it's already a good success. Repeat that five years in a row and you can buy yourself a well deserved house in Beverly Hills. Especially if the small core group of fans stays on and watches one every damn year. Just make it fun by having original kills, tits and references to the older movies.

I think the remake tried to hard to be taken seriously. Jason needs to kill people by guitar, not by stabbing with a screwdriver. I really think this can be an ongoing sucess, they just need to aim lower.

 IMHO the screw driver kill was the only scary one in the film

Maybe for the best that PD doesn't continue in that field. I didn't really feel the love in the Platinum Dunes movies. Slick, superficial products, soulless. Good looking, some hits, some misses, but I'm sure 20 years from now guys like us will still speak about the Hauer Hitcher, not the Bean one.

@Kate
But should a Friday be scary (again)? Is that the strength of the series, the reason why it got to 10 parts and a VS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Maybe for the best that PD doesn't continue in that field. I didn't really feel the love in the Platinum Dunes movies. Slick, superficial products, soulless. Good looking, some hits, some misses, but I'm sure 20 years from now guys like us will still speak about the Hauer Hitcher, not the Bean one.

 

@Kate
But should a Friday be scary (again)? Is that the strength of the series, the reason why it got to 10 parts and a VS?

I have actually never seen a F13 movie other than the remake, I have no built in feelings towards the concept or character of Jason. All I know is that the screw driver bit was the only moment in the film I felt some sort of emotion other than boredom