MEL GIBSON’S FILM ‘GET THE GRINGO’ BYPASSES THEATERS WITH DIRECTV VOD DEAL

“Get the Gringo” is actually the new title. The film has been advertised as “How I Spent My Summer Vacation.”

This is a radical move on Gibson’s part. “Get the Gringo’ will never see the inside of a movie theatre (other than some special screenings). Instead, 20 million DirecTV subscribers will have the opportunity to VOD the film for a very reasonable $10.99. Then, later in the year, the film will move to other VOD outlets and Fox will release it on home video.  

The smartest move here is the price point. $10.99 is a very attractive figure for a brand-spanking new Mel Gibson action picture. You’re able to enjoy this in the comfort of your own home with the entire family. Also, the advertising is much cheaper. Everything is done through DirecTV, who has a stake in the success of the film, as opposed to mass media markets.  

While “Margin Call” was also released in theatres, it still managed to gross a very impressive $4 million on VOD while in theatres, and that’s without the attraction of an A-list star in an action flick.

Crunch the numbers. 2 million buys, or 10% of DirecTV subscribers, equals $22 million. Toss in the subsequent VOD release and DVD and what you have here is a potential game changer.

Another brilliant move on Gibson’s part (his Icon produced) was to not allow himself to be put in a position where theatre owners could blackmail him. “Tower Heist” was a theatrical release that wanted to experiment with same-day VOD. Theatre chains freaked and threatened to not screen the film. Universal blinked and that was that.

By not putting himself in that position, Gibson can take this concept for a serious test drive, and while it may not be a rousing success, that won’t be the end for VOD. Others will simply learn from the experience and try again.

NEW ‘DEATH WISH’ TO BE SET IN LOS ANGELES

Details from the remake’s writer/director Joe Carnahan:

“I’m doing ‘Death Wish.’ But this version is a re-imagining of the book and set in present day Los Angeles. The L.A. of ‘Collateral.’ It’s on buses, cabs, metro trains. I want to show an unseen version of L.A. L.A. on foot. Prowling. Hunting. The vast emptiness of downtown.”

“Death Wish 2″ (my favorite of the series) was set in Los Angeles, as well. Carnahan’s also cast Frank Grillo, but not for the lead.

‘G.I. JOE’ SEQUEL IS ‘BETTER THAN THE FIRST,’ SAYS CHANNING TATUM

There’s a low bar.

ESPN FIGHTS THE DIGITAL FUTURE

ESPN President John Skipper refuses to use any platform other than cable television:

Skipper says that ESPN is prepared for the growth of digital platforms. Since 2005 it decided that when it bought broadcast rights for games ”we would acquire all rights for content on any devices.” But the sports channel doesn’t want to use digital platforms to take viewers away from cable and satellite. Distributors “pay us money for that. We’re not going to undermine (that) by giving it away to anyone else.” Still, the digital rights could give ESPN an edge over potentially muscular new competitors such as NBCUniversal’s NBC Sports Network. Over the next year ESPN will face “more competition than ever and new competition,” Skipper says.

Or NBC could go digital. Because that’s where the people will be.

Skipper also believes…

“… it makes sense to charge people for a bundle of channels that includes ESPN instead of paying for just the ones that they watch. ”If people pay a la carte they will end up paying as much or more” than they do now.

As far as my cable viewing goes, thanks to Redbox, Netflix Streaming, and my personal DVD collection, I am down to Fox News and Packer games. My Dish contract, where I’m currently paying $50 a month for, expires in December, and I’m going to cancel it.  

Am I alone with this sentiment?

NETFLIX: MOST PROFITS STILL COME FROM DVD-BY-MAIL

The by-mail DVD service is five times more profitable for Netflix than streaming, and yet Netflix is putting all its focus on streaming.

I wonder why.

JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE IN TALKS TO PLAY CLINT EASTWOOD RIVAL IN ‘TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE’

Timberlake is a very good actor.

INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY CELEBRATES FOUR-YEAR ANNIVERSARY WITH ITS BEST-RATED MONTH

Because I refuse to pay the additional $30 required to up my Dish package to include Investigative Discovery (or AMC or TCM), I’m no longer able to enjoy this 24/7 true crime-a-palooza, but I eventually catch up to their programming on Netflix Streaming.

What I love about true crime docs is how fascinating the stories are. It’s a perfect mix of mystery, procedure, and insight into human nature — both good and bad. Even better, these non-fiction programs don’t come with the all soapy personal and agenda-driven stuff that clogs up too many narrative crime procedurals.

It’s also a very conservative genre. Law enforcement represents the competent good guys, evil is portrayed as frighteningly real through the perpetrators, and the heart of the story comes from the plight of the victims and the loved ones they leave behind.

You can’t watch these shows and oppose the death penalty. There be monsters and those monsters deserve to die. Not only is that almost always the point-of-view of the victims’ families, but the show itself stays out of the debate and lets the facts speak for themselves.

—–

—–

LAST NIGHT’S SCREENING

In Time (2011) — Blur-ray screener. Review coming soon.

—–

—–

SCOTTDS’ EPIC LINKTACULAR

QUESTIONABLE TREK VOL. 2 – ANDREW PRICE AND SCOTTDS DISCUSS ‘STAR TREK II‘

MGM REVS UP YET ANOTHER WRITER FOR ‘ROBOCOP’

READ AUTHOR DOUGLAS ADAMS’ FRUSTRATED LETTER TO DISNEY FROM 1999

007: NEW ‘SKYFALL’ PHOTO

WATCH TEST FOOTAGE FROM A PROPOSED ANIMATED ‘JOHN CARTER’ ADAPTATION FROM 1936

NEW PROMO BANNER FOR ‘THE AVENGERS’

WATCHMEN PREQUELS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED

HOW MUCH DOES A MEGA-PRODUCER MAKE AND SPEND?

NIKKI FINKE’S COURTROOM BATTLE WITH THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER SET FOR JULY, 2013

12 THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT LIAM NEESON

THE 50 BEST USES OF SONGS IN MOVIES

‘GREEN ARROW’ TV SHOW CASTS ’90210′ ACTOR IN LEAD

HUMOR: THE 2012 BEST PICTURE NOMINEES RECAST WITH DOGS

ADAM SANDLER TO HEADLINE AND CO-WRITE ‘CANDY LAND’ MOVIE

14 JAW-DROPPING OPENING TITLE SEQUENCES FROM MOVIES

THE 100 GREATEST NICOLAS CAGE QUOTES (NSFW)

16 FACTS ABOUT ‘FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF‘

INSIDE THE FIRST SCREENING OF ‘A CLOCKWORK ORANGE‘

20 FACTS ABOUT ‘FARGO‘

—–

—–

COMING SOON TO HOME VIDEO

On March 6th, Shout! Factory will release TRANSFORMERS PRIME: THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON on Blu-ray & DVD!! Fans and collectors can pre-order the DVD release of TRANSFORMERS PRIME: THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON today!  The Limited-Edition 4-Disc Blu-ray Collection (featuring the 96-page IDW graphic novel) is available for preorder exclusively on Amazon.com and ShoutFactoryStore.com.

—–

On April 10th, Shout! Factory, in association with Marvel Knights Animation, will release ASTONISHING X-MEN: DANGEROUS on DVD!! Fans and collectors can pre-order the DVD release of ASTONISHING X-MEN: DANGEROUS today! The DVD is available for preorder on Amazon.com.

—–

—–

CLASSIC PICK FOR THURSDAY,  FEBRUARY 2

TCM:

9:30 AM  EST: Johnny Belinda (1948) —  A small-town doctor helps a deaf-mute farm girl learn to communicate. Dir: Jean Negulesco Cast:  Jane Wyman, Lew Ayres, Charles Bickford.  BW-102 mins, TV-G, CC.

Wyman won a Best Actress Oscar for  her brilliant performance as an innocent deaf-mute put through emotional hell in this mature and very moving forgotten classic.

The most difficult role for an actor or actress to play is that of a wide-eyed innocent. When you look at Wyman’s performance here, Jennifer Jones in “The Song of Bernadette” (for which she won the Oscar), or Joan Fontaine in “Rebecca,”  you can tell that one wrong move would’ve undermined the entire performance. There’s so much room for error in these portrayals because it’s so easy to slip into melodrama or sticky pathos — it’s so easy to want to communicate something “more” with a flash of “knowing” in the eyes.

But to pull a character like this off convincingly, to be able to hide the strings in a performance that relies almost completely on the eyes and buries so much of who the actor  really is … that’s a real feat.  

—–

—–

Please send comments, suggestions and tips to jnolte@breitbart.com or Twitter @NolteNC.

Where my colleague Chris and I most disagree is with the assertion that Hollywood chooses “politically correct” or “safe” villains because Hollywood is all about the money and therefore wants to appeal to audiences who care what the villain looks like:

The film industry, like any other business, generally wants to appeal to the largest audience possible.  Picking “safe” enemies is one way to do that. 

Two of the most profitable films released this past year were “Gran Torino,” where our hero confronts black and Asian street gangs, and “Taken,” where the henchmen are Muslims and the arch-villain Middle Eastern.

With a $33 million production budget, “Torino” made nearly $270 million worldwide. On a budget of just $25 million, “Taken” made an astonishing $145 million domestically and another $79 million overseas. And before you give Hollywood credit for producing two films with politically-incorrect villains, keep in mind that both are notable exceptions; that only a Clint Eastwood could’ve made “Torino,” and “Taken” was produced in France, of all places.

To be clear, my point isn’t that international moviegoers flock to see politically-incorrect villains. My point is that is that audiences don’t care what the villain looks like and that Hollywood’s being dishonest when they say different.  

Like the mainstream media, Hollywood’s cry of being money-driven is a lie to cover an increasingly obvious Leftist political agenda. If Hollywood really is all about making money by “appealing to the largest audience,” why no follow up to one of the most profitable films of all time, “The Passion of the Christ?” Why the three-year run of A-listers starring in box-office embarrassments with the most politically correct villain of them all: Americans in the Middle East? Define these films any way you want, I define them as loss-leaders to put Democrats in office. 

Money-driven industries don’t keep making Edsels and ignore the Mustang.

Filmmakers and producers with access to Box Office Mojo know that whether politically “correct” or “incorrect,” who the villain is has nothing to do with box office. “Torino” and “Taken” were monster hits because they’re both extremely satisfying films. If there’s a single quality that made them successful that bucks the current Leftist Hollywood agenda, it’s their lack of moral equivalence. Both are straightforward good versus evil stories with a protagonist willing to sacrifice everything for something bigger than himself.

Because the human condition knows no boundaries, it’s old-fashioned heroism international audiences crave, not “safe, politically correct” villains.

“Basterds” only proves this point. “Politically correct, safe” Nazis are not what’s drawing audiences but rather the vicarious pleasure of watching something Hollywood doesn’t give us enough of: the delicious spectacle of evil receiving a reckoning at the hands of American good guys.

Both “G.I. Joe” and “Superman Returns” are all-kinds of politically correct. Neither, however, is likely to break even for years to come. “Spider-Man,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and “300″ are a diverse mix of villains but pretty straight-forward in the good versus evil department … and all are monster hits.

Here are two other major areas of disagreement:

With the current economy, filmmakers don’t want to risk losing any potential audience.  Even when ticket sales are up, filmmakers may not want to pick sides on an issue. 

The decisions surrounding “G.I. Joe” and “Basterds” and so many politically correct others had nothing to do with the economy. They were in the works long before the recession hit. But this idea that directors keep their politics ambiguous and “not pick sides on an issue” disregards a never-ending avalanche of anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, pro-Leftist films that never stop flopping.

Hollywood doesn’t always like a clear line between good and evil, so in order to lock a distributor, a director might keep his or her politics ambiguous (especially if those politics are right of center).

On the left, I would say this is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Over the past ten years directors have become less and less politically ambiguous, and I would argue, increasingly strident with their on-screen agendas. This is why the adult drama is all but dead today. The agenda turns off a mainstream audience tired of paying ten bucks to be insulted and in turn no longer trusts Hollywood with anything other than tentpoles. Liberal audiences stay away because political stridency makes for bad filmmaking.

On the right, sympathies hidden and made ambiguous in fantasy films like “300″ and “The Dark Knight” have nothing to do with anything other than an intolerant film and media industry poised to pounce. The personal attacks leveled against a pre-drunk driving Mel Gibson before anyone had seen “The Passion,” and David Zucker and Jon Voight make clear that there’s a heavy price to pay for political apostates.

It comes down to this Gutfeld quote from the Yogerst piece:

“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.”

For my money, mainstream Hollywood has chosen sides, and not ours. And that choice has nothing to do wanting to “appeal to the broadest audience possible.”

It’s not the economy stupid, it’s the agenda.

Look, I applaud Sylvester Stallone’s heroic stance against human traffickers and kidnappers – for I know there will be quite an outcry especially from the large and very influential human trafficking and kidnapper lobby.

Of course, this movie comes on the heels of two other edgy ventures: The G.I Joe flick – which turned a gritty American icon into an airbrushed Benneton ad, and “Inglourious Basterds” a fantasy that has average Jews hacking Nazi soldiers to pieces.

These three movies have two things in common:
1) They avoid present, real danger in the world and instead choose villains that are not just safe, but politically correct to hate. You’d think it would be easy for Quentin Tarantino to find a present day enemy for the Jews (like, say, a terrorist group that denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map), but maybe none exist! And what of those guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center? I suppose in the era of the “unclenched fist,” we must be more sensitive to “backlash” than barbarism.

2) They want to make money. And to make money these days, it means putting the world first, not America. Global tickets sales mean eliminating any scent of American justice – that evil Cowboy mentality that reminds the world we’re reliably awesome. But most important, it’s distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil when it’s happening today.

Because then, you have to choose.

Tonight we’ve got the lovely Lauren Sivan, Carl Cameron, Ron Geraci, and Dr. David Tolin, from the great show “Hoarders!” (love that show)

Director Stephen Sommers said, “this is not a George Bush movie — it’s an Obama world.” Sounds to me that since Bush is no longer president it is supposed to legitimize the disintegration of patriotism for our armed forces. That would explain why the Joe’s are no longer the all American heroes they once were. Instead, they are a multinational task force that picks up the pieces after the USA fails.

This film represents everything President Obama worshipers stand for, which explains the lack of Americanism.GI Joe has always been a vehicle of unapologetic patriotism. What happened? Obama happened. For some reason, it now feels like multiculturalism was not acceptable until Obama was elected into office?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but our US armed forces were made up of the best men and women of all colors before Obama was elected, right?Yeah, thought so.

In a LA Times piece, Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore said, “Our starting point for this movie is not Hollywood and Manhattan but rather mid-America, there are a group of people we think are going to respond to the movie who are normally not the first priority. But we’re making them a priority.”

So by stripping Joe of his pure blooded Americansim, they are going to bank on Middle America as an audience? That doesn’t sound like a good move. Of course, many people will see this film thinking it will be some a pro-America and pro-military film. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

GI Joe obviously has a built in audience since it has been around for several decades. Fans should be offended by Hollywood’s attempt to indoctrinate them with their “Obama world” views through the lens of something that used to be American.

This film is a kick to the groin of Middle America, if there was not already enough reason to loathe the Hollywood elite, this should do it. From beginning to end, I kept saying to myself “how could they do this?” It would be one thing if this was a good action film with a misplaced title, but they can’t even give us that. They did give us a weird Brendan Fraser cameo, however.

Sommer’s went on to say, “Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can’t be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that’s made up of the best of the best from around the world.” Does that mean all action films are about beefy guys on steroids?

That might have been the case for some notable films of the 1980’s, but that isn’t the norm. Look at action star Nicholas Cage, definitely not on steroids. What about the main characters in great war films such as Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, or The Great Escape. These guys aren’t beefed up; in fact, character’s in most war films are far from Rambo lookalikes.

The filmmakers could have easily made this film without the steroid types and kept the “American Hero” theme. Instead, they decided against it because after all, “it’s an Obama world.” That only means the push for anti-Americanism is at an all time high. Just like Obama and his cronies know they only have limited time to push all their agenda’s through before people catch on, Hollywood is capitalizing on the president’s popularity in order to push “world friendly” views.

Deadline Hollywood Daily reports that, “In the U.S., the studio expected the film to do best in so-called flyover country — the term Hollywood bestows on blue-collar moviegoers in the Midwest, South, and West where the common complaint is that liberal elites don’t make movies for their “God, guns, and country” tastes.”

This is hilarious, because even though the film has a clear line of good and evil, there is nothing that “flyover country” should appreciate. The new GI Joe film is how the so-called liberal elites see patriotism. To them, it means creating a politically correct melting pot of equality where no one gets offended.

To me, this is the culmination of the reverse McCarthyism that is going on in Hollywood. They took what should turn out as a pro-American if not also conservative film, and repackaged it for the “Obama world.” Hollywood has always been a wild place, but right now, we are amidst an Obamanation.

And indeed “G.I. Joe” does remind of an Obama world: It cost too much, doesn’t deliver and we should all get back our cash for this clunker.

While nowhere near as soul-deadening as “Transformers 2” or the latest “Harry Potter,” you still feel like you’re watching someone else play a video game for two hours. The creative imagination spent to produce all-kinds of cool gadgets and weaponry obviously left nothing for plot, character or even a hint of logic. One of the bigger action scenes is a chase through the streets of Paris involving the combined force of a dozen “Joes,” deadly missiles and million-dollar accelerator suits all in pursuit of a Hummer filled with bad guys. Oh sure, there’s sound, fury, car crashes, and explosions galore, but never an explanation for why no one shoots out the Hummer’s tires.

The overall plot’s even dumber. McCullen (Christopher Eccleston), an international weapons manufacturer with a grudge against the French (the film’s only touch of Americanism), has invented a missile that lets loose a gajillion termite-like nano-bots capable of devouring everything they’re exposed to. Even though he’s invented the weapon and has it in his possession, McCullen inexplicably hands it over to the U.S. Military for transport so he can steal it back and have someone else weaponize it. Not only are we expected to buy the idea that an inventor can’t weaponize his own invention, but that an arch-villain with fleets of high-tech submarines and jets at his command would have the weapon driven to its first target in the aforementioned Hummer.

The G.I. Joe squad is run by Hawk (Dennis Quaid), an American General who recruits, trains and makes part of his special-ops team the best and brightest from 23 nations. Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) were part of the military transport ambushed by McCullen and saved by the “Joes.” Hawk’s had his eye on Duke for a while and brings both to his secret facility hidden deep beneath the Egyptian sand. In less time than it takes for, say, a montage set to a remixed pop song and an awkward Brendan Fraser cameo, both men are trained and ready to go.

For an origin story – the rise of Cobra – no one’s motivation makes a lick of sense. Other than revenge against the French (which hardly makes him unsympathetic), McCullen’s endgame is never fully explained and one character’s Darth Vader-ish turn to the darkside comes completely out of nowhere after a look at a real neat-o piece of military hardware.

A number of back stories are told through frequent flashbacks that halt an already lumbering plot to a complete stop. Marginal films have delivered the same information with a line of exposition or a shared look. All of the performances are wooden, there’s no memorable dialogue, and the Will Smith-lite comic relief (yep, Wayans) is more than a little reminiscent of a train wreck called Jar Jar.

There’s no coherent explanation of what the ultimate stakes are and therefore even less suspense or sense of peril. There is a moment at the end that tries to wrap up what it all meant with a big reveal, but by then it’s too late and the promise of a sequel feels like more of a threat.

“G.I. Joe’s” politics are a result of omission, not what’s up on the screen. At first, Paramount Studio’s decision to rip the heart from an American icon and lie about how not doing so would hurt the international box office made me angry. But after sitting through the numbing experience of watching the end-product, I’m now rather grateful. If it wasn’t for resentment I wouldn’t have felt anything.