The Hush-Hush News Report 03.24.09: Defending WWE Studios

Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 03.24.2009

In this week's Hush-Hush News Report, we take a look at why we should maybe give John Cena's new film a chance! Plus news on the Coens remaking a John Wayne classic, Zac Efron not ruining a Kevin Bacon classic, Anne Hathaway goes over the rainbow and more Expendables casting news!

Hello, loyal readers, and welcome to the Hush-Hush News Report! I'm your host as always, Jeremy Thomas. Not much to say here, as this week's been a very busy one at Hush-Hush headquarters. Needless to say, my desk is crowded with Mt. Dew and Monster cans…not that this is anything new. But enough about my terrible nutritional habits…let's get right to the news!

Coen Brothers to Show their Grit



Joel and Ethan Coen will next put their spin on True Grit, the iconic Western that won John Wayne an Oscar.

The Paramount film will be more faithful to the Charles Portis book than the 1969 pic, also distributed by Paramount.

Portis' novel is about a 14-year-old girl who, along with an aging U.S. marshal and another lawman, tracks her father's killer in hostile Indian territory.

But while the original film was a showcase for Wayne, the Coens' version will tell the tale from the girl's point of view.

The project reteams the brothers with Scott Rudin, their partner on the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men. The Coens wrote the screenplay.

The original starred Kim Darby as the teen, Wayne and Glen Campbell as the lawmen, Jeff Corey as the killer and featured Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper as fellow outlaws.

You know, I'm not traditionally a fan of the reboot/remake trend, but this is one that really intrigues me. First off, the best way to do a remake is to take a film that's well-known, but not fresh in people's minds…in other words, a film that's been out for quite a long time. Obviously, True Grit fits that category perfectly. Secondly, you have to provide your own take on it…as I mentioned in last week's Movie Zone Podcast on the topic, I look at remakes like I do cover songs, and you have to offer your own interpretation. Otherwise, what are you doing the remake for? If anyone can provide a new and interesting reinterpretation of a classic Western, it would be the Coens, who have put out some great, original work over their career.. As the article says, the original was basically a John Wayne vehicle, and without him in the picture Joel and Ethan can take this story, which is a good one, and put a great spin on it. We'll see how this one goes, but for now I approve.


Efron's Foot is Not At All Loose



Zac Efron wants to be fancy free, but apparently not footloose.

The teen-throb star of Disney's first three "High School Musical" films, has pulled out of Paramount's planned remake of "Footloose," in an apparent effort to stretch his career beyond fame as just a cute song-and-dance man.

Efron told the studio last week that he did not want to do another musical at this point in his career, according to a senior member of the production team.

The team member told TheWrap that Efron had script approval on the movie and used a rewrite on the screenplay as the loophole to get out of his contract: "People had been working on this project since last July -- we were all shocked."

Said Paramount, in a statement to TheWrap: "Footloose is a project we've longed to see re-booted for a new generation. While Zac is no longer attached, we remain excited and committed to the collective brain trust of Kenny Ortega, Neil Meron and Craig Zaden, who will reinvigorate the franchise. Their fresh take on the film will undoubtedly be filled with the same kind of breakout performances that we've come to expect from them."

From one remake ramping up to another one taking a hit, and it's all good news as far as I'm concerned. Anything that puts a Footloose remake on the ropes puts a smile on my face, especially if it means that Zac Efron's not going to be involved. I appreciate that Efron wants to get out of the musical niche that his agents have painted him into, and if he can go into more serious roles and be good then I wish him all the best; it wouldn't be the first time a pretty-boy teen heartthrob has shown that he's more than just a pretty face who looks good in jeans. Then again, I don't know that his rumored upcoming role in Johnny Quest is going to get him any real credibility as an actor, so maybe he still needs to do some work on his script choices.


Hathaway to Get Happy As Garland



Anne Hathaway will star on stage and screen as Judy Garland in the Weinstein Co.'s legit and film adaptations of Gerald Clarke's bio "Get Happy."

TWC recently optioned the legit and film rights to the book, first published by Delta in 2001.

Harvey Weinstein said Hathaway "will be a true class act in this challenging role." While Garland's life and legacy have been explored before in popular culture, Weinstein noted Clarke's take "is particularly outstanding because of its exclusive details from her own writings."

There is a great joke to be made here about going Hathaway and films with "get" in the title, from Get Smart to Rachel Getting Married and now Get Happy. That joke aside, it's nice to see that Hathaway's foray into more serious roles isn't a brief stop, and that she appears to want to further expand her perceived range as an actress. Rachel Getting Married marked an absolutely stand-out achievement for the young actress, and without trying to sound cynical, a biopic is exactly the kind of role that makes people stand up and take actors seriously. Just ask Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Jamie Foxx, Josh Brolin, Michael Sheen, Leonardo DiCaprio…the list goes on. A Judy Garland film is exactly the kind of thing that could do well both with audiences and with critics; if done right, this could be Hathaway's true transitional film into "serious film" territory.


Warner Bros. Cracks Open the Archives For DVD-To-Orders



There are just so many DVDs that a retailer can keep in stock -- and for that reason, no studio has ever released its entire library of movies on DVD. But Warner Bros. Home Video now plans to launch a new program under which anyone will eventually be able to order any of 6,800 films in the Warner library and receive a made-to-order copy within a week. "This news is going to make a lot of people really happy," George Feltenstein, senior vice president of theatrical catalog marketing at Warner Home Video, told USA Today. The program apparently is being rolled out in stages. In the first stage, being launched today (Monday), about 150 films never released on DVD will be offered for sale at $19.95 for a physical DVD and $14.95 for download from the website warnerarchive.com.

This is a brilliant move by Warner Bros., who look to be thinking outside the box and trying to turn their extensive film library into a profit while minimizing their costs. There are a lot of great films out there that have never seen the light of day on DVD, and if other studios follow suit that this would allow fans to get ahold of pretty much any film they wanted, directly through the studios without having to go to a middleman retailer like Best Buy or the like. A quick look through Warner's new website shows that most of the first stage of films are not ones most audiences will know; perhaps the best known ones are The Citadel from 1938, James Caan's Countdown, 1931's Possessed starring Clark Gable and Joan Crawford and 1959's Al Capone with Rod Steiger. This is just the first set of films and obviously a lot more will follow; this is a marketing plan that I give a serious thumbs up to.


Vatican To Boycott Angels & Demons



Just as The Da Vinci Code drew condemnation from the upper echelons of the Vatican, so, too has its sequel, Angels & Demons. (Actually, Angels was written by Dan Brown before Code and is therefore sometimes referred to as a prequel.) On Friday, the Vatican's official newspaper Avvenire commented that the church "cannot approve" of the film, much of whose plot takes place in Vatican city. The following day, the Turin daily La Stampa suggested that the church has been considering boycotting the film but that officials are concerned that such an action could result in a "boomerang effect" that would result in even more people going to see it. The film is scheduled to open worldwide on May 15.

This falls in the "in no way, shape or form a surprise" section of the news; the only surprise for me is that it would take the Vatican this long to rag on the movie. The Catholic headquarters was remarkably critical of Da Vinci Code, a film that it had no reason to be critical of considering that the work is acknowledged as a piece of fiction. Personally, it comes as even less of a shock to me that they would disapprove of Angels & Demons, which to my mind is a far better story than Da Vinci but also hedges the plot much closer to the Catholic Church, taking place within the context of the selection of a new Pope. If I were Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, I would be crossing my fingers hoping that the Church does boycott it, since that seemed to push the first film's numbers way up. This makes no difference toward my intentions to see the movie, and I know I'll be there ticket in hand when May 15th rolls around.


Ribisi to Write in Rum



Giovanni Ribisi has been added to the cast of Warner Independent's The Rum Diary, starring Johnny Depp. He'll play a carousing journalist in the Hunter S. Thompson adaptation, reports Variety.

Written and directed by Bruce Robinson, the film is about Paul Kemp (Depp), a freelance journalist writing for a rundown newspaper in 1950s Puerto Rico who is surrounded by a bunch of lost souls bent on self-destruction.

Amber Heard, Aaron Eckhart and Richard Jenkins co-star.

I've been waiting for this film to begin production for quite a while, being as I loved Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and I see only good things coming out of another Johnny Depp/Hunter S. Thompson film. Ribisi is a very underrated actor in my opinion who has excelled in the roles he's been given, and he joins a stellar cast here with Depp, Heard, Eckhart and Jenkins. Nothing about this film has bad buzz beyond the extended period of development the film has been through—it was optioned not long after Fear and Loathing was released, and that was over ten years ago. But if taking their time to make sure they can get it right results in a better product, then they can take all the time they need.


Expendables News: Crews In, Fiddy Out, Russell Says "No?"



Ain't It Cool News reports that the role of Hale Caesar in Sylvester Stallone's upcoming action team-up feature "The Expendables" has been recast yet again.

A few days ago came word that due to a scheduling conflict, Oscar winner Forest Whitaker had to bow out of playing the character who sends the protagonists on their mission. The role was then recast with rapper 50 Cent which caused a wave of online backlash. Now it seems the rapper is no longer involved; instead former San Diego Charger Terry Crews will be taking over the character.

Additionally, it recently came to light that Jean-Claude Van Damme had rejected a role in The Expendables, and now come reports that Kurt Russell has also turned down an offer to join the ensemble cast.

Stallone told Stallone Zone:

‘'I know that many people on the site have asked for Kurt Russell. I asked for him too. Actually, I was taken aback when asked to put the request in a letter and send it to his agent. Subsequently, I was called back by the agent several days later after refusing to send a letter and he said Kurt Russell is not interested in ‘ensemble acting' at this time. So, people, I came, I saw, I failed".

Good news and sad news here, I suppose. The Expendables is pretty much the official film of 2009 for us at the Movie Zone Podcast, and we love talking about the various and constant casting rumors, so I'm sure we'll have fun talking about this one. Crews's replacing 50 Cent is a move I'm certainly quite thankful for, as while I don't hate Mr. Jackson, he's certainly no Forrest Whitaker. Crews may not be an Oscar-caliber actor himself, but he's been turning in solid work for a while in films such as Street Kings, Harsh Times, Get Smart and so on. He's also got Terminator Salvation coming up, which is sure to raise his profile. Personally if I were Stallone, I'd rather have a guy who took on a cyborg in my movie before a guy whose best role is in the excruciating disappointment that was Righteous Kill.

The Kurt Russell news, though, just hurts. Of all the actors who could have amped this up and made it even more bad-ass, the guy who made Snake Plissken, Jack Burton and Stuntman Mike household names had to be at the top of the list. There's speculation floating around that Russell may not have ever gotten the offer and his agent rejected it for him, which is not an unheard of thing to happen; it's also quite possible that he's holding true to his statement after Soldier in 1998 that his testosterone-filled action movie days were over. One can only hope that whatever happens he comes around and joins up, because he'd be the perfect topper to an insane cast.

---

Check below for some of the excellent work here on-site you should be reading if you haven't already:

Movie Zone Top 5: TV Guest Stars We Want to See: Another great Top 5 hosted by Trevor Snyder. I tried hard to come up with a list, but the only one I could think of was Sarah Michelle Gellar on Dollhouse.
Sean Lealos gives us his best Alternate Takes yet, mixing up the format a bit to give us a career retrospective on I Love You, Man's Paul Rudd!
Movies Fact or Fiction: Ben Piper guides Joseph Lee and Jonathon Bieda through another set of great questions!
Deleted Scenes: Robert Sullivan looks at the trailers for 500 Days of Summer, Tyson, The Cake Eaters and Management and adds in an interesting question about the working class as villain in cinema!
Ask 411 Movies: Leonard Hayhurst talks about the deaths of Ron Silver and Natasha Richardson, Jesse Camp's similarity in look to Russell Brand, Touching Evil and Michelle Rodriguez!
The 411 Movies Podcast: Leonard, Chad, George, Will, Erik and I play a Maxim VoxPop game, talk about Race to Witch Mountain and Last House on the Left and Will's Worst Idea of the Week in Part 1, and then talk about remakes, reboots and re-imaginings in Part 2!

And for shameless self-promotion, check out my work, both here in the Movie Zone and over in the Wrestling Zone:

Movie Review: Knowing
DVD Review: Friday the 13th (Uncut Deluxe Edition
DVD Review: Punisher: War Zone
DVD Review: Quantum of Solace
The Wrestling Zone Top 5: Celebrities in Wrestling
Wrestling's 4R's Friday Edition: Jericho versus Steamboat, Roddy and Snuka at ‘Mania? REALLY?
Wrestling's 4R's Tuesday Edition: The not-so-special 500th Episode!
411's Wrestler of the Week: Week 51: It's a two-horse race now, and barely even that as the year draws to a close!



Check 411Mania out on MySpace!

---

Regarding the MacGuyver remake, Steve307 & setobakura are of one mind:

"No Richard Dean Anderson = no thanks."

"R.D.A needs to be Mac if they are going forward with this... if R.D.A isnt Mac, we riot"

I don't think I would terribly mind it if they recast Anderson in order to go with a younger actor. And don't get me wrong, guys, I loved RDA as Mac, I really did. However, let's be honest, it wasn't exactly the most difficult role in the world and another actor could really step into those shoes without much of a problem. I still think they'll probably had Anderson appear in a cameo if they use him at all, and that would be a nice way to pay homage to the man who originated the role. We'll have to see how this goes as things develop.


From chester cheetah, we have thoughts of another recasting:
If you thought the fan backlash about Kane Hodder not being cast as Jason after Jason X was bad, I pity the poor shmoe that gets cast as Ash for the Evil Dead remake. Long live Bruce.

I will feel a little bad for whoever has the unenviable position of filling Campbell's shoes. However, I can't say I'll feel TOO bad, because while he's going to quickly become hated by 99.9999% of the internet fanboy crowd no matter who he is, he'll also have a very nice paycheck coming his way I imagine. Again, as long as Raimi stays involved and doesn't let them screw up his beloved property then it'll be all good. Ironically, I think this would be the first ever remake of a remake of a remake, since Evil Dead was essentially remade and expended on with Evil Dead II, and yet was itself a sort-of remake of Within the Woods, which was a short intended to raise the money to make the full movie. I have to ask: at what point does a movie get remade so many times that it forms its own gravitational field, causing Hollywood to implode around the script? 'cause I think we're almost there on this one.


From SeanAltly:
You know, I normally enjoy your column and generally agree with your views, but it really bugs me that you so matter-of-factly referred to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as a "failure." A 76% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a decently huge box office intake does not a failure make. I'm aware that these things don't automatically make it a good film, but it definitely disproves any notion that it failed.

Yes, I enjoyed the film and I will defend it (and I own the Indiana Jones DVD box set, so I was a fan before the new film), but it seems that it is largely an internet-based backlash against the film. Sure, South Park spoofed it, but what haven't they spoofed? I really think you should reword it as "perceived failure" or "under performance," because the fact is that it was not a failure.

No disrespect intended Sean, but I think you took my statement a bit out of context there, or perhaps I didn't state myself clearly enough. The full context was that Raimi wasn't big on doing a fourth Evil Dead due to the failure of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which means that he perceived it to be a failure. From a financial standpoint, the movie was successful, though the box office was a little disappointing by anyone's standards in Hollywood. I didn't hate the movie and actually enjoy it more than Temple of Doom; it wasn't my favorite of the films but I didn't strictly dislike it. I probably should have been more clear about that, but there you go.


From Mag:
Speaking of kids in R rated movies, years ago I went to see Hostel and two rows ahead of me were a couple with two kids. They were about 7ish to 9ish and during the more graphic parts of the movie the kids were screaming like crazy, really getting scared. The parents reaction? Telling the kids to shut up and to stop it.

Sometimes I really don't understand how parents can be so cruel, I'm still mad at myself for not saying anything but theres not much I could do.

I'm speechless. A couple of kids at Hostel? You, my friend, officially have the most egregious "kids at R-rated movies" story ever. I totally understand what you mean about regretting not saying anything but having your hands tied; it's a no-win situation because you don't want to make a scene in the middle of the movie yet can't help but be appalled. I don't think I could have contained myself over that one, and I admire your restraint in not ruining the experience for others in the movie theater. You were in between a rock and a hard place there and have my sympathy.


From Volourn:
I don't see the problem with allowing the kiddies to watch horror/adult themed movies. I watched all sorts of these type of movies when I was that age, and IIRC I didn't become a mass murderer or psychologically damaged. This includes movie like Poltergiest, the various late 70s/early 80s horror movies, etc., etc. Meh. The idea that it is some form of 'child abuse' is lame, and has no basis in real life logic.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. My guess would be that your parents gave you a proper level of guidance about the movies you were watching, and that probably did a world of good. I watched horror from a young age myself and never had any issues; hell, I'm more or less a pacifist. But my parents also gave me the correct guidance and without that, I could well have been a screwed up little monkey by the time I was a teenager. I don't think it's child abuse, I just think it's poor parenting and highly irresponsible. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it; like I said, agree to disagree.


From Stephen:
Norbit was nominated for an Oscar.

A fact that drives me into giggles to this day, Stephen.


From Travis:
You know, I still think Spiderman 3 had a bigger purpose than what we all think it did. It set up Venom, and made many think he is dead. But we never see Venom die, so I feel that they will bring him back for a future movie(Spiderman 5?). I think Spiderman 4 should only mention Venom at the end, but for a villian I'd like to see the Hobgoblin make an appearance, I mean they have the props for him, why not put them to use?

I'd rather see venom go away in the incarnation we saw. Nothing against Topher Grace, I think he's a good enough actor but he was terribly miscast and I don't think fans are exactly clamoring for his return. The Hobgoblin would be an interesting choice, though it kind of carries a "been there, seen that" feel since Hobby on-screen could well become a Green Goblin rip-off. Spidey has a lot of villains to go through still; I think Black Cat could be a great one for making an appearance myself.


From Jake G:
The villain in Spider-man 4 should be Spider-man 3.

If it means we see the return of emo, jazz-dancing Peter Parker, than hell no.

---

The Hush-Hush Editorial Section: WWE Films
This week, John Cena's 12 Rounds comes out in theaters, going up against DreamWork's latest CGI-animated behemoth Monsters vs. Aliens and Lionsgate's based-on-a-true-story horror flick The Haunting in Connecticut. Obviously, not many people give the WWE Studios effort much of a chance to come out on top of the box office, and well they shouldn't; even without the family-friendly blockbuster appeal of Monsters, one just needs to look at the past WWE entries into the movie marketplace and the relatively low screen count to see that Cena may come out on top against Edge and the Big Show at WrestleMania, but he's not going to claim the Box Office Heavyweight Title. Already, people are getting ready to call the film yet another WWE failure on the big screen…but really, is that a fair thing to say already?

I remember when WWE Films opened their doors. Inspired by the success of the Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in The Mummy Returns in 2001, Vince McMahon's sports entertainment company saw an opportunity to expand their business into another market. When the Rock reprised his role in the spin-off prequel The Scorpion King three years later, the WWE has happy to get on board as a production company. Budgeted at sixty million dollars, the film brought in over $165 million worldwide, and the company certainly saw the potential. After officially forming WWE Films, they helped finance the Rock's next two films, 2003's The Rundown and 2004's Walking Tall. Unfortunately, despite praise for the most Electrifying man in sports entertainment, the films failed to turn a profit, even considering the worldwide gross, and it wasn't until DVD that the films found their way out of red ink; the good news for the fledgling studio was that they had only co-financed the films, and thus didn't have to absorb much loss (if any). After that, WWE Films president Michael Lake moved ahead to get some projects going that the studio could do on its own. They took advantage of the recognition factor of their professional wrestling talent base, and in quick succession we saw See No Evil starring Glenn "Kane" Jacobs, The Marine starring Cena, and The Condemned starring retired wrestling megastar "Stone Cold" Steve Austin. Each of these films was critically derided and had fairly low grosses, with The Marine topping the list at eighteen million dollars domestically and The Condemned drawing the least with just over seven million. After the publicly perceived failure of these movies, the company changed its name to WWE Studios and announced a focus on made-for-TV films and direct-to-video releases. Since then they have scored a success with Behind Enemy Lines: Columbia starring Ken Kennedy. But are they ready for another venture into theaters?

Personally, I saw why not? As much as people tend to point out the low grosses of the three WWE Films to date, it must also be recognized that outside of The Condemned, all of these films were successes before they went to DVD thatnks to low budgets. See No Evil only grossed fifteen million dollars, but it did so on an eight million dollar budget. Likewise, The Marine's eighteen million, which becomes twenty-two million worldwide when worldwide figures are taken into account, was achieved on only a fifteen million dollar budget. While the studio doesn't get all of that due to distribution deals and such, it certainly was enough to set them up nicely by the time DVD sales started to roll in. Those DVD figures have easily put all three films in the black, which means that to date all of the studio's efforts have been successes—and that's while earning R ratings for two of the three, thus preventing a large part of their fan base from seeing them. So financially, the studio is in a great position to try another theatrical release.

"What about quality?" I hear you say. Well, okay. I'll be the first to admit that The Condemned was a highly flawed film that ripped off several other films in order to make a barely coherent story. I personally enjoyed the B-movie feel of See No Evil, a film that didn't try to be anything more than a simple and straight-forward horror flick. Sure, the promotion that it received on WWE programming may have been atrocious, but there have been far worse horror films to come out in the three years since; it at least didn't hide from or water down its horror sensibilities. As for The Marine, it was a great, fun little throwback to the 80's action films; I often call it the unofficial Commando sequel, as it has that sort of feel. Everything explodes in The Marine…EVERYTHING. It never takes itself too seriously and while Cena isn't going to be winning any Oscars any time soon, he did a serviceable job in a role that was catered to him. Were these films cinematic masterpieces? Not at all. Remember, though, that when Fox debuted as a television network, they had to put out a fair amount of crap before they hit on formulas that worked and put out quality programming. There's no reason to expect WWE Studios to be putting out blockbusters or Oscar-winning epics from the get-go, and to place those expectations on the studio is unreasonable.

Does this mean that I have great hopes for 12 Rounds. I can't say that, sadly. Cena's a charismatic man, but he doesn't have the screen presence of Dwayne Johnson, who's finally starting to catch his stride in Hollywood after several years and several films. The rest of the cast is largely unknown, though I've always been a fan of Ashley Scott's since her turn as Selina Kyle in the delightfully trashy yet short-lived Birds of Prey TV show. And anything with hackmaster Renny Harlin at the helm gets me apprehensive; the director's been behind some of the worst movies I've ever seen. That said, I'm certainly willing to give it a chance, as it seems to be a fun little take-off/homage to Die Hard With a Vengeance. Yes, it could certainly turn out terrible, but I'm not going to start digging the grave before the body's even dead.

And that's all we have today for the Hush-Hush News Report. Come back next week, when I'll be back with more news, rumors, reader correspondence and long-winded opinions. Until then this is Jeremy Thomas off the record, on the QT…



…and definitely, "Hush Hush!"