411 Fact or Fiction Movies: Week 64

Posted by Matthew Craggs on 02.02.2007

George H. Sirois and JT talk Sam Raimi directing The Hobbit, spoof movies, Rachel McAdams in the new Batman film, and more (including JTs Hero's rant) in Week 64 of Movie Fact or Fiction.

Greetings all,

Welcome to Week 64 of Movie Fact or Fiction with two of 411's best. This week we have the valiant George H. Sirois facing off against the honourable James Thomlison.

1. Sam Raimi is a decent choice for director of The Hobbit

George H. Sirois: FICTION. 3 years ago, I would have said Fact. Hell, last year, I would have said Fact. But after hearing about how Raimi had to be literally forced to incorporate Venom into the Spider-Man franchise - and especially how he went on record saying that he still felt he needed to understand the Venom character AFTER SHOOTING WAS FINISHED - it seems like Raimi only wants to get involved in things he's comfortable with, which was why he took on the Spider-Man franchise in the first place. I don't know how comfortable he is with The Hobbit, and he would need to be comfortable with ALL ASPECTS of it or else he'd face the wrath of Tolkien fans everywhere. Personally, I'd much rather see Guillermo Del Toro take it on...

JT: FICTION. Look, you will not hear me knock the guy. In fact, I'll give him a ton of praise for his illustrious career. The Evil Dead series is one of the greatest sets of cult classics ever, Darkman may be the best B-Movie ever, The Hudsucker Proxy is one of the best films ever, and he took Bull Durham, turned it into a romantic dramedy (For Love of The Game), and actually made it work. To this day people are torn over which Spider-Man they like better (I'm a fan of 2 thank you). But George is completely right here. He has attained a certain level of stature in his career, that he wants to do things the way he wants to do things. The reason Peter Jackson was so successful was because of the fact that for the most part, he stayed completely loyal to the story, and the minor changes he did make, most fans of the book will tell you were necessary ones due to the already vast length of the movie (something like 8 hours if you delve into the trilogy). There are people that will fight him tooth and nail if he tries to put his "Raimi twist" on things. That, and come on… FORCED to put Venom in a Spider-Man movie? Bah.

Score: 1 for 1

2. With the recent release of Epic Movie, Hollywood needs to take a break with the juvenile spoof movies.

George H. Sirois: FICTION. It really pains me to say this, and if I had my way, the "2 of the 6 Writers of Scary Movie" would be lobotomized. But the bottom line in the film industry is money, and Epic Movie opened at Number 1 this weekend. Therefore, "juvenile spoof movies" make money. It's a simple rule: Moviegoers stop supporting shit and shit will stop being made. (Quick note: This is not a knock on Airplane, The Naked Gun, or any other classic the Zucker Brothers are responsible for. Well… I wasn't a fan of the later Scary Movies…)

JT: FICTION. We agree yet disagree, Sirois. I'm surprised really, would have thought a man like yourself would have a great appreciation for these flicks. Well, myself and my father will defend these vehamitely (mostly to the mother/wife of the household). These movies – filled with their "over the top / completely unrealistic / mocking / utterly dry" humor – have been around for years, and it seems to get overlooked by many that these movies are completely horrible and terribly unbearable… and that is the point. They are DESIGNED to be such fucking suck-fests that they actually become enjoyable if you're willing to let your mind take a "sensibility" break for ninety minutes. Now, I'm not saying that making these movies is the most brilliant and credible move in the movie business, but the point remains that there will always be an audience of people willing to accept – and enjoy – this mindless garbage. Idiots (such as myself) spend money, too, and as George said, the proof is in the pudding. This movie did come in first in the box office this week, fending off Smoking Aces which was *thought* to be a highly anticipated release and from who I've talked to, is a great flick.

Score: 2 for 2

3. Rachel McAdams is a vast improvement over Katie Holmes in the Batman Begins sequel.

George H. Sirois: FICTION. I hate seeing actors getting replaced to play the same characters, and Rachel Dawes is only supposed to be in the film for 10 minutes anyway. I say, keep Katie and let fans who didn't like her be happy when she either leaves Gotham or gets killed off. And then you have the fans of continuity happy as well.

JT: FICTION. I'm with GS here. I absolutely loathe cast replacements for the same character. It's 10 F'N minutes! I don't care how much of a negative she was (or rather, people say she was) in the first one. 10 minutes… that's gotta take what, a week to shoot if that? Get her in, get her out, and get on with it. On the other hand, if this is a financial decision because of her limited role and she wants a fat paycheck, then shame on her as well. It's certainly not like she needs the loot. 10 minutes qualifies as a CAMEO. Take a CAMEO paycheck.

Score: 3 for 3

Switch!

4. Fox has issued a legal summons to video Web site YouTube, after users uploaded episodes of 24 before they aired on television. This likely had a significant effect on Fox's ratings.

JT: FICTION. Significant effect? Not with this show. While I am not a watcher of the show (no I don't dislike it there's just too much shit on when it runs), 24 is renowned for being high-quality in all four of the major departments: Writing, direction, production, and acting. 24 is very unique in that it presents a program in a way that is unmatched by any other show on television. Hell, its slogan is practically "look how unique and fabulous we are". Either way, said high quality comes in the form of high quality programming on high quality television. They might get their quick fix from a low quality, all spoiling copy of it on YouTube or a random torrent, but the fact is people still want to see on their television because they LOVE THIS SHOW. Did it draw only 31 million viewers instead of 33? Maybe. But the fact is people are so nuts for this, that whether they had seen it already or not, they were watching it – while recording it – and immediately watching it again, and three more times during the week. 24 is BACK, and nobody is ignoring it because they saw a 6 X 6 version a week ahead of time. Jack F'N Bauer owns you people.

I'll tell you what does have an effect on it. HEROES bitches. I can't prove it, because Nielsen is a whore who is a week behind (and it will take yet another week after that because the DEBUT of this season of 24 was the second part of a four hour, necessary show to see to keep up). But I'm telling you. Heroes will make a dent in 24. Call me crazy. Might not be the biggest dent, but there are people who will choose Heroes over 24 (take, myself) and it will have nothing to do with YouTube.

The whole mute point here as I turned this into a 24 vs. Heroes discussion is the fact that you can watch the full episodes of either on the channel's website once it's aired. So I guess it will come down to which one you can hold out longer for.

Save the cheerleader. Save the world. Check. Where you will you all be when it goes down?

JT's Note: I apologize for turning that into a big fat Heroes promo, but let me remind everyone that before I did so, I did actually answer and explain the question in lengthy form. I suppose I should have said that ‘Heroes' has a better chance of effecting the rating of 24 than any leaked YouTube shit does. Sirois, feel free to verbally have your way with me now.

George H. Sirois: FICTION.and I'll keep this one short since I have yet tolatch onto Heroes. It may have had an effect as significant as… I don't know… 30 viewers? Yes, I'll give YouTube the credit it deserves for gaining such a huge fanbase, but I'll give viewers credit for wanting to watch their television shows ON TELEVISION! You like a show or a movie, you want to watch it the best way you can, and even if you got to see it online, you're gonna want to watch it on television anyway to see what you may have missed because the damn computer locked up for no good reason.

Score: 4 for 4

5. George Lopez called Jay Leno, "Like, the worst interviewer on TV," but Lopez is just sour after not being invited on the show since 2005.

JT: FICTION. …..uh, can I push here? Hate to knock the question Craggsy but are we heading down the tabloid route of guessing if someone has sour grapes or not? I'll go FICTION (again, wtf?) I guess, because Jay Leno is hardly the worst interviewer on television, Lopez has only had ONE season since his appearance on the show (just started the second like a week ago), and last time I checked, the shows weren't on the same network (you know how the late night's love to promote their own network's shows). I haven't read the news bit, but he may have even been joking. Even if he wasn't… whatever. Jay Leno isn't hurting for guests, and Lopez isn't hurting for ratings. Get this garbage out of here!

George. H. Sirois FICTION. Going FICTION here as well. I've seen much worse interviewers than Leno, and even if his skills with guests can be hit-or-miss, I gotta give him credit just for working his ass off every single day. He hasn't earned the nickname of "the hardest working man in show business" by accident. So, yeah, I'm with JT on this one.

Score: 5 for 5

6. Model Niki Taylor has filed a slander lawsuit against E! for her portrayal in Blvd. Of Broken Dreams. This is good to see because the network consistantly produces exploitative programming.

JT: FICTION. (I believe we have a record folks). For one, as you mentioned the network has built itself on such exploitative programming, and anyone watching something on E! almost has to take it with a grain of salt. On the other, she's probably filing it because most of it is true and she's pissed all of her business is now out there. But E! has done this for years, and most of the time when someone throws a hissy, it's because E! got it right (something they do often). Half the stuff on E! is unbearable (six hour red carpet coverage?), but when they do bring stuff like this (probably the most popular being the ‘True Hollywood Story' series), they usually get it right and you know what, if you don't want the world to know every last detail of your life, don't become a celebrity; there will always be people ready to oust you for their own gain. E! – when watchable – is mostly about the good or the funny (Talk Soup, E! Entertainment News, E! Behind The Scenes look at, etc). Getting all cranky about the few times they attempt actual serious, informative programming on a celebrity is foolish. Neither Niki Taylor or anyone else is going to stop or change what is the world of paparazzi and celebrity reporting. How many actors/actresses have sued publications like Star, The Enquirer, and The Globe? How'd that work out for them?

George H. Sirois: FICTION (And now we officially have a record). Does E! put on programming that makes you beat yourself senseless for watching such tripe? Sure, it does. But you have to give them credit for doing their homework when they want to dig deep and give us something serious. And if you still want to become a celebrity after seeing their True Hollywood Stories, then don't be a dick and flush your career down the toilet. Or at least don't be surprised if it shows up on E! when you do commence flushing.

Final Score: 6 for 6

Whoa! Two participants, six things they agree on, and twelve Fictions. It is a Movie Fact or Fiction first. But I promise you fine readers more conflict next week!