411 Fact or Fiction Movies/TV 11.28.08: Week 154

Posted by Ben Piper on 11.28.2008

Do people want to see a big screen Arrested Development movie? Would the public be supportive of an actor's strike? Will Baz Luhrmann's Australia be a mess? 411's Trevor Snyder and Shawn S. Lealos debate these and other topics in week 154 of 411 Fact or Fiction: Movies/TV!



Hello! Welcome back yet again to the gift that keeps on giving, Fact or Fiction. This week we've got Shawn S. Lealos tangling with Trevor Snyder. Let's not waste any more valuable time and find out what they have to say, shall we?

1. If the Screen Actors Guild should decide to go on strike, you would not be supportive of their cause.

Shawn S. Lealos: Fiction - I am disgusted at the AMPTP for trying to parlay the current economic crisis into their argument in the negotiation sessions. Yes, the world is in horrible economic condition and, through the trials and tribulations of the little people like you and me, the Hollywood system still makes millions of dollars. The fact that they want to undercut the people who actually make the movies (actors, writers, directors) baffles me. What the studios tried to do to the writers makes me never want to get behind that organization again. The writers didn't get everything they deserved but got close enough to end the work stoppage

This isn't about the Will Smiths, Harrison Fords and Angelina Jolies of the actor's world. When you think of actors going on strike, you think of Brad Pitt and George Clooney, both millionaires, and wonder why you should care. This guild doesn't just represent these men, but also represents the small actors, and I don't mean the Christian Kane's and Dominic West's that have name value. It represents the actors who have had to hold down jobs waiting tables and bartending awaiting the next role to come around. Everyone deserves representation and the main issues at hand need to be dealt with. The studios are making billions of dollars and there is more than enough to go around, especially the small percents being asked for.

The main issue is the internet media and the fact that studios sell millions of dollars of advertising time for these sites and no one got paid for work or images appearing in these except the studios themselves. This came clear when the writers went on strike and someone made a brilliant power point presentation on YouTube that explained exactly what they wanted. There are also the tricky issues of DVDs and digital downloads which were not properly represented until this time. The actors deserve their fair cut on this and they will get it. Yes, there is an economic problem right now, but last I looked Twilight made $70 million in its opening weekend, so I don't see the Hollywood studio system suffering like Mom and Pop's diner around the corner.

Trevor Snyder: Fiction - Considering I fully supported the earlier writer's strike, I'd look like quite the fool not getting behind this one. From my understanding of it (and admittedly, I have not been following it very closely), it seems to be a lot of the same arguments that were brought up in the writer's strike. And, as Shawn already pointed out, there is simply no reason everyone involved in the making of the various programming we see shouldn't get the cut they deserve. Shawn made another excellent point - if this strike happens, a lot of people will probably roll their eyes and wonder why we should care about the plight of the mega-stars we constantly see plastered all over the place, But, instead, when this strike happens, and you start to get angry about it, take a moment and think about that guy who plays "Buddy #3" in some beer commercial. These are people who are just trying to eke out a living, just like your or I. The current economic crisis shouldn't be used as an argument against them. If anything, it should only further highlight why we need to make sure that everyone is being paid what they deserve, and not getting shafted by money-hungry studios who are worried that they might have to go from making ultra-ridiculous amounts of cash to just crazy-ridiculous amounts of cash.

Score: 1 for 1

2. You would be fully behind an Arrested Development big screen movie coming to fruition.

Shawn S. Lealos: Fact - This is a tough one. I hope that the movie will carry the same humor and entertainment value as the show. I have no doubt the actors are capable of carrying their skills to the big screen as they have proven over time to be stars. Jason Bateman (Juno), Michael Cera (Nick and Norah), Jeffrey Tambor (Hellboy II) and David Cross (Alvin and the Chipmunks) have all had current hit movies and will add face value for the people that never saw the show on television (and that was quite a few based on the ratings).

But I see the phenomenon as a television show, not as a feature film. When other shows are stretched into features it doesn't always feel natural. Family Guy and The Simpsons are two movies that seemed like long versions of their shows, and that isn't always a good thing. In a movie you need more. Can they pull it off with Arrested Development? I hope so, and I'll get behind it, but I will be hesitant to say it will be successful right now. It just has a long road ahead of it.

Trevor Snyder: Fiction - Now, before all the Arrested Development fans jump all over me, let me explain. I myself am a huge fan of the show. I've watched every episode multiple times, and will gladly discuss it for hours with anyone else willing to do so. And, if a movie is in fact made, I will no doubt go to see it, hoping for the best. But in terms of this question, I have to say "Fiction", for pretty much the same reasons Shawn said "Fact." Arrested Development was an amazing show, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will fully translate to film. At least one important cast member has already voiced concern over the need for a feature version (Michael Cera), and I can understand why. The show actually had a very effective finale. I would think any fan has to be at least a little worried that a poorly done movie will only serve as a black-eye on one of television's greatest shows. Do I have faith that they could pull it off? Yes, I do. Will I be incredibly happy if it turns out to be as good as the show, and admit my nervousness was for nothing? Of course. But until I actually see it, I have to remain a little apprehensive, which means I can't in good faith get "fully behind" the movie.

Score:1 for 2

3. While its trailers look truly epic, you expect Baz Luhrmann's Australia to turn out to be a mess.

Shawn S. Lealos: Fiction - I have full faith in Baz Luhrmann. When he said he was going to take Romeo and Juliet and transpose it to modern times, while keeping all the words The Bard wrote intact, people scoffed. Romeo + Juliet was a spectacular Shakespeare adaptation that turned everything on its head and inside out, yet retained everything that was in the story without ever touching the dialogue. The man is an unmitigated genius.

And then he went and made the movie that should have won Best Film at the 2002 Academy Awards in Moulin Rouge! That movie was a brilliantly constructed movie that was a beauty to watch. Looking at the sets and design that this man built and seeing how he pulled it all together was a sign this man is a special kind of filmmaker. I could not wait for his next epic.

Six Years Later.

You call the trailers epic, but I am underwhelmed with them. I don't think they signify what I believe we will see in this movie. Baz Luhrmann does not make movies like Michael Bay. I don't think this will be a movie full of great fires and explosions, I believe it is a marketing trick to get people in the doors. This movie, I believe, will have an epic feel to it, like an old time adventure movie. It will be more Gone With the Wind than Pearl Harbor and in Baz I trust. I don't think Baz Luhrmann can make a mess, I think it will be a carefully constructed movie made by a master filmmaker. Stick Bay behind the camera for this film, and I might agree. But not Luhrmann - he's too good for that.

Trevor Snyder: Fiction - I'm only answering the way I am because I really have no particular expectations about this movie. I'm definitely not the Lurhmann fan that Shawn is. I thought Romeo + Juliet was an interesting but ultimately under-whelming experiment, and I absolutely hated Moulin Rouge (or at least the 70% or so of it that I could actually sit through). That being said, I could see the man was talented from both pictures, and so I have maintained an ambivalent attitude about him. I'll never go see a movie because it's a Baz Lurhmann film, but nor will I ever not see a movie because it's a Baz Luhrmann film. Now, here we have Australia, a film starring one actor I really like (Hugh Jackman) and one that I could definitely live without (Nicole Kidman). So far, the early word I've heard has been somewhat negative (ironically enough, it comes from critics in Australia), and the trailers - while indeed having a somewhat epic feel to them - have done little to excite me. There are simply too many other films I am looking forward to more this Holiday season for me to get amped up about this one. Maybe it will be a mess, or maybe it will actually be decent. Maybe I'll go see it, or maybe I'll have something better to do that day. I honestly don't know. If nothing else, though, I'm sure it will be a visually impressive film.

Score: 2 for 3

Switch!!!

4. The previews for Four Christmases have you interested in seeing the film.

Trevor Snyder: Fact - Well, sure, but not in that "oh my God, I need to rush out right now and see this movie" kind of way. There are enough chuckle-inducing moments in the previews (almost all of them courtesy of Vince Vaughn, naturally) to make me think this one might be worth a look, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna be first in line at the theater or anything. If anything, I might just wait until video...although the fact that it's a Christmas movie probably means it won't hit video until December of next year. Oh well, whatever. Even if I'm not completely excited about it, I'm certainly at least "interested" in it. I mean, anytime Vaughn and Jon Favreau are together onscreen, it's got to be worth at least one viewing.

Shawn S. Lealos: Fiction - The only things in the trailer that makes me even slightly interested is Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau's scenes together which, I am positive, will only be a small part of the film. My best friend called me up after seeing this and seems really interested in checking it out. I couldn't care less after seeing the trailer. It's time for Vaughn to get away from these schmaltzy family comedy flicks and go back to Old School, Wedding Crashers, Swingers era Vince Vaughn. That's all I want to see.

Score: 2 for 4

5. You'll be tuning in for the Psyche holiday special.

Trevor Snyder: Fiction - I've never seen a single episode of the series...why would I start now? Sorry, I'd love to write more, but that's really all I have to say about that.

Shawn S. Lealos: Fiction - Just because I don't watch much TV. Now, I love Psyche and my wife will probably watch it, and then re-watch the reruns, and then re-watch the reruns reruns. I mean, they show each new episode numerous times every week don't they? OK, if I am at home and I am not writing or watching a DVD I have to review or just wasting time online, and it is on television, I would watch it. But that is unlikely. I miss my favorite shows half the time. I just can't seem to tune in to network television and catch up later on DVD.

Score: 3 for 5

6. You expect Transporter 3 to not be the best of the franchise, but a more than serviceable film in its own right.

Trevor Snyder: Fact - Believe it or not, this was actually the toughest one for me to answer. Not because it's such a thought-provoking question, but rather because of the wording of the statement. How does one really gauge which Transporter film is "the best of the franchise?" Is one Transporter movie really all that much better or worse than another? Aren't they all, at the end of the say, nothing more than a "serviceable film?" Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first two movies, and am looking forward to this one. But I really don't want my life to have gotten to a point where I'm am pontificating on the artistic highs and lows of the Transporter franchise. This is one of those critic-proof series that just has to make sure it follows the set formula each and every time, and people like me will be happy. I don't need it to be the "best of the franchise." I just need it to be entertaining enough to justify a Transporter 4...and to keep me occupied until Crank 2: High Voltage.

Shawn S. Lealos: Fact - I really liked Transporter 2. I also really liked the original Transporter. I also will probably make Transporter 3 my Thanksgiving Day movie this year, which tells you what I think of it. I don't think it will match up to the first two because of the lack of directorial experience. Cory Yuen had worked on some great action movies before he created this franchise. Louis Leterrier made the fantastically crazy Unleashed before he took over. Maybe new director Olivier Megaton will prove me wrong, and with a last name like that why wouldn't he? However, I cannot wait to see it. I'm more excited about Crank 2, but this will suffice.

Final Score: 4 for 6

And since this was such a big hit last week, we'll do it again...

Non Fact or Fiction Bonus Question: If you could have sex with any celebrity for one night, who would it be, and why?

Trevor Snyder - Wow, this is a surprisingly tough question, given that it's based on a fantasy scenario that - let's face it - I will never actually live out. You'd think I could just throw out some name and be happy with it, but instead I find myself devoting real thought to it. Well, alright, the almost too-obvious answer at the moment would of course be Megan Fox, and anyone who needs me to list the reasons why has apparently never seen a picture of this girl. On the other hand, to solely focus on the current It-girl of the moment would force me to ignore my now nearly decade-long obsession with Milla Jovovich. True story - I used to keep some of the L'Oreal display signs from a drugstore I worked at, simply because the beautiful Miss Jovovich was on them (I know that's somewhat creepy...I did eventually throw them out, if that helps my image any). My love for Milla is such that I have collected her albums (not that bad, actually), convinced myself that all three Resident Evil movies are actually pretty good (it might be true with the first film, but I think there's a definite level of delusion there with the sequels), and I still to this day get annoyed when I hear people mispronounce her name (it's "YO-vovich," not "JO-vovich"). Obviously, I'd love to be in a situation where I'm actually forced to choose between Megan Fox and Milla, but when push came to shove, I'd probably buck the current common choice and go with Milla. Of course, I'd gladly give Fox a rain-check.

Shawn S. Lealos: My wife edits all my copy before I turn it in. Thanks guys.
I have always had the hugest crush on Eliza Dushku. I absolutely loved her as Faith in Buffy. I would yet her throw me around and abuse me anytime she wanted (I mean, if I were not married, umm, honey...) She has stayed hot in just about everything I have seen her in. Tru Calling? Still hot. Hell, I followed her willingly into teeny-bopper drivel Bring It On, just to watch her bounce around. Don't even get me started on that cat suit in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. If there was one girl made for a one-night stand, it is Eliza Dushku. I've just always been a sucker for a tomboy.

And there you have it. Trevor and Shawn agree more often than not. Thanks to them both for taking part, and to you for clicking the link.

Check back next week for more great Fact or Fiction action.
-BP