A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
It's no surprise that The Modern American Right would start crowing like Peter Pan on crystal meth once the Sarah Palin mockumentary premiered in theatres across the US. But one has to ask whether or not these same people have forgotten even the most recent of Right Wing cinema flops that they claimed was a successful box office opening.
The much anticipated Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated”, which chronicles Sarah Palin’s rise from mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to national prominence, will play exclusively in AMC Theatres starting today. You can vote for the movie to play in your town at The Undefeated website.
The Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” opened to a huge opening day. They are selling out from Atlanta to Orange County.
Opens Friday, July 15th!
There are several reports that the audiences are standing and cheering in the theaters.
And while it's not unusual to witness cheering/shouting/standing in theatres during movies ranging from the latest sophomoric Wayans Brothers production to more serious offerings, The Modern American Right is in full framing mode with this one. After all, they have to, considering Palin has become somewhat of a religious figure amongst conservatives and some libertarians.
But lets look at this from an honest marketing and distributing perspective.
The Modern American Right have everything to lose should this mockumentary fail, so it works to their advantage to frame this opening as "groundbreaking". But what they aren't considering is the fact that we are talking about 10 cities, 10 specific theatres, and a cult following that really can't survive in a mass release.
And while some within the Modern American Right are poorly attempting to minimalize the reality of poor ticket sales, I can't but wonder what sort of "victimhood meme" they will conjour once the initial glow has worn off with members of the Tea Bagger set.
Considering the massive failure of the Atlas Shrugged film adaptation, one would have to wonder why The Modern American Right are proclaiming that there is this "grassroots" desire to see the new Palin propaganda film "The Undefeated"
ARLINGTON, Va., June 14, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In response to overwhelming demand from its free-market grassroots activists for a sneak peek of the controversial new film, The Undefeated, Americans for Prosperity Foundation's RightOnline Conference will move the showing of the movie to the 1,000-seat main ballroom during RightOnline on Friday, June 17th at 9 p.m. CDT. The Undefeated is an independently produced feature film about Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. RightOnline is a conservative technology activism conference that runs opposite the left-wing Netroots Nation Convention.
Film, regardless of your socio-political alignment and regardless of the subject matter, is very touch-and-go. You produce something that the market won't like and you will lose in the end. This is why indie films don't see the return that blockbusters produced/directed by the likes of Spielberg or star Tom Cruise see. And while the Modern America Right equate audience share with validity, this is a market that they will always fail in.
The world of "niche film" is difficult to make any considerable profit from. But considering the bulk-purchase nature of conservative books, I'm guessing that the DVD release of the Palin mockumentary is going to be showcased by Fox"News" and their easily persuaded automatons as proof that "conservative filmmaking" truly has a market in American - despite the fact that they are currently pushing the narrative that all of Hollywood is against anything "conservative".
Another aspect of "niche film" is that there can be enough of an audience for your product if you market it correctly. After all, if there is a market of people willing to spend money to see someone's mouth attached to another person's asshole, then there's enough people willing to go see a film trying to convince them that Sarah Palin is "experienced enough" to be President. But never let these people convince you that that will break any records, as they never will.
Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air ( I do so love that name, since it's quite fitting for their subject matter ) is touting a new documentary intended to expose that evil "liberal bias" in film and television:
What does Hollywood really think of conservatives? Ben Shapiro talked to the movers and shakers in Hollywood to find out — and recounts his adventures in his new book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV
This is something the Modern American Right love to do - play the role of the ultimate victim in society. This is readily apparent when Morrissey does post like this, as it not only shows how ignorant he is of film narratives but how his definition of "conservativism" shifts to fit a particular time and day.
The real story behind all of this noise and pity party posturing is that the Modern American Right don't want to have to deal with that which they champion most - Free Market Principles. Do they honestly expect studios to produce programming and feature films that don't have an audience that will bring them a profit? Actually, yes, they do. But we all saw what happened when Atlas Shrugged was a giant disaster at the box office, though Hot Air was sure to make excuses for that as well.
Having studied film for the better part of my life, I now that producers and studios can make really bad decisions and end up losing a lot of money, but using the consistent drumbeat of "we are a Center Right nation" that the Modern American Right doles out at every conceivable opportunity, coupled with the fact that the Tea Baggers are somehow "the voice of the people", why do you think Hollywood doesn't make more films like Atlas Shrugged? The answer is quite simple - they don't make money.
With that in mind, one has to ask whether or not this selective love affair with the Free Market travels outside the world of film and television? Does the Modern American Right think that there are business that sell toys, cars, or even food that cater to an exclusively "Far Left" audience? The answer is most likely a definitive yes, considering the group we are discussing.
But what is troubling most of all is how the Modern American Right define "conservativism".
Having grown up on a family farm in Western Kentucky, I saw what true conservativism was. It wasn't predicated on isolating people, but favored the noting that "I am my brother's keeper", as the community helped one another when the time called for it. It was about defending all of America and not just a specific, even fringe, element within it. The broader point is that the Modern American Right have taken the word "conservative" and melded it with "Libertarianism" and "Extremism" and attempting to convince people that this is what makes up a plurality of American thought. The only problem is that this isn't the case, and they will complain until their final breath that they are the target of a malicious attack because the majority won't openly embrace the minority.
So the Modern American Right claims that Palin has a "secret weapon" she's about to use just in time to announce her candidacy for President.
Too badthis is the same thing she has used ever since she was vomited down into the socio-political stage of the "lower 48":
Shortly after Republicans swept last November to a historic victory in which Sarah Palin was credited with playing a central role, the former Alaska governor pulled aside her close aide, Rebecca Mansour, to discuss a hush-hush assignment: Reach out to conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon with a request. Ask him if he would make a series of videos extolling Palin's governorship and laying to rest lingering questions about her controversial decision to resign from office with a year-and-a-half left in her first term. It was this abdication, Palin knew, that had made her damaged goods in the eyes of some Republicans who once were eager to get behind her potential 2012 presidential campaign.
The response was more positive than Palin could have hoped for. He'd make a feature-length movie, Bannon told Mansour, and he insisted upon taking complete control and financing it himself -- to the tune of $1 million.
The fruits of that initial conversation are now complete. The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run.
So Palin sent out the woman that writes her Facebook posts to convince a "conservative filmmaker" to make a propaganda film about her and the Fox"Nation" and all their drooling compatriots consider this a "secret weapon"? This is standard operating procedure for these people.
But let's consider their previous standpoints on documentaries of this nature......
By and large, documentaries can be divided into two categories: The Micheal Moore style and the Ken Burns style. While the former is largely and unblushingly predicated on a pure ideological message, the later is a purest form. Care to take a guess which one Stephen K. Bannon's is going to follow?
Moreover, one has to look at what Bannon is doing - putting up a meager sum ( most low budget, indie films spend MUCH more than this; as the producers of the box office disaster Atlas Shrugged spent upwards of 10 times as much ) of "one million dollars" - and this appears to me to be more of a calculated business move than one of blind allegiance to Palin. He'll likely pocket a rather substantial profit from this. Honestly makes me wonder who is bilking who in this whole laughable affair.
I can recall hearing stories about Fredric Wertham ( PhD? ) and his book called Seduction of the Innocent which was published in the early 50s and highlighted what he perceived to be anti-American/anti-family/anti-values messages in comics.
The modern American Right has kept up Wetham's traditions and helped to burnish his legacy in recent years by claiming that Hollywood - the ever present "boogyman" for all the reactionary lot who look to place blame on other people rather than examining the environment they live in - and the larger comic producers in America are, in essence, pushing anti-American propaganda on our children.
We've seen this in conjunction with the last Superman film and with an issue of Captain America where he and The Falcon witness an "anti-tax" ( Tea Party ) rally. And now that the later is slated for a world-wide feature film release in the near future, the modern American Right are concocting the latest "controversy" because of how the film will be marketed outside the US.
How do you sell a movie called "Captain America" to an overseas market? In South Korea, Russia and the Ukraine, apparently, the answer is you don't even try.
The film "Captain America: The First Avenger" will have its title truncated to, simply, "The First Avenger" in those three overseas markets, according to Marvel Studios insiders. The choice was made by Marvel, Paramount Pictures' international team and distributors in those three countries based on market research results. Those involved in the decision are being careful to frame the move as a matter of brand management and consumer awareness and not as a decision tilted by cultural or political winds.
Seems that "capitalism" and a successful business model take a back seat when the word "America" is involved. Nevermind the fact that the comics have referenced Steve Rogers as "Cap" - leaving off the "America" last name - for longer than I and many of the comics new found Right Wing detractors have been alive, but the very message behind the Captain America film and what he was created to stand for will likely mesh quite well with the comics, as did the Superman films - even the last one. And while that a message was one of hope, equality, justice, and truth, it all takes a back seat in favor of pushing a failed ideology.
For anyone that has read either of the above mentioned series or seen any of the Superman films, the heroes in question don't aid and comfort American exclusively. Superman has saved many many foreigners and I can recall Captain America being part of a crew of superheroes that were quite responsible for helping save the entire universe during the Infinity Gauntlet storyline. And for any twitchy wingnuts reading this, that included people of ALL socio-political ideologies.
For the modern American Right, in order for any character in any story ( regardless of medium ) to be of any intrinsic value, it must be painted in Red, White, and Blue, sing the National Anthem - complete with hidden verse - read the Bible, attended only a "Christian" church service, vote Republican, and carry around a picture of Sarah Palin in their back pocket which they will ultimately look upon and ask for guidance in a time of distress.
I'm looking forward to the film, but also know that the producers and on-air personalities at Fox"News" are waiting with baited breath for their time to offer "thoughtful commentary" on the Captain American feature once it makes it's debut.
It's pretty much a given that Glenn Beck will have a nice "chalkboard session" on how Fredrick Wertham predicted the "evils" of to Stan Lee, director Joe Johnston and will somehow tie this all back to Frances Fox Piven.
A recent highlight at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood ham-fistedly attempts to show that the types of films that are made in America are so "anti-American" that people are fleeing the lines at the box office en masse.
While that is clearly the intent of the author that re-posted the article from USA Today - and obviously punctuated by a picture of modern conservative "boogeyman" Matt Damon - what the majority of the commenters and the author fail to realize is that it's a multi-level reason as to why box office receipts have lowered.
Over the years, the increase in movie ticket prices has pushed more and more people away from theaters. The average price in my area for a non-matinee showing of a feature length film is $7.00 for an adult and $4.25 for a child under the age of 12. Couple that with concession prices - the actual revenue generator for your local theater - and you're looking at spending upwards of $40 per trip to the local cinema for a family of 3. In today's economy, it's no surprise that there has been a decline.
But what of "choice and competition"? You know, the conservative cure-all.
I can recall the long periods of time one had to wait during the 80s for a film to be reintroduced to the consumer on cable television and ultimately onto VHS. While that process could take upwards of a year to happen, films that are seen in theaters in May - the start of the summer movie season - are available on a variety of platforms within as little as two months. This is a great incentive for the consumer to wait just a short number of weeks to view a desired film - complete with extra features - for a fraction of the cost.
These releases can be picked up at your local video retailer - though those are disappearing at a rapid pace due to online film outlets like NetFlix and convenience locations like RedBox - and can have multiple viewings of the film and no longer have to face the risk of late fees that boarder on extortion. Not only that, but online film outlets often allow the consumer to stream to a variety of platforms to experience the movie in your desired setting.
Is it any wonder why box office revenues have dropped?
Now, this isn't to say that Hollywood is guilty of producing what amounts to visual crap, but there is a market for just about anything these days - just ask the Wayans Brothers. But what is more of an issue than most people will realize is how distribution works.
The film you might want to see is only playing in a specific market. After all, not everyone lives in a large metropolitan area like New York, L.A., Chicago, or Atlanta. What if you have to drive 2hrs out of your way just to see a film - that adds to the cost, and will be yet another reason why you would opt to wait until the film is delivered on your particular cable service or can be purchased or rented.
This notion that Hollywood is seeing decrease revenue because of story content runs completely contrary to the actions of the consumer and how they are willing to spend or save and opt for the sake of convenience.
Postlethwaite was immediately recognizable to anyone that is even marginal in their movie viewing. From performances in Romeo and Juliet, The Shipping News, Mel Gibson's version of Hamlet, Alien 3, and as recently as Inception. The man is a character actor of the highest order.
Tragically, he lost his battle with cancer last night:
British acting legend Pete Postlethwaite has passed away in hospital. He was 64. The Warrington-born actor - who was nominated for an Oscar in 1994 for his turn in In The Name Of The Father - died yesterday (January 2) in Shropshire, reports the The Guardian
Postlethwaite had been undergoing treatment for cancer, despite continuing to work and appearing last year in bank heist hit The Town. His other career credits include The Constant Gardener, Brassed Off, Romeo + Juliet and The Usual Suspects.
You can find many of Postlethwaite's film clips here.
Let's just say that at first blush, I'm not too terribly disappointed with the appearance of the cast, save what could possibly be the woman who will obviously the love interest. Not that Natalie Portman isn't a semi-decent actress, it's just that.............
..............just watch.
All the key players are there: Thor, Odin, Loki, Volstagg.
My only issue with this was that Kenneth Branagh was seated comfortably in the director's chair on this one. He pretty much turned Frankenstein into an overly stylized version of the most juicy bits of Mary Shelly's magnum opus, so I'm sure that with the advent of special effects in the modern Hollywood realm he's done the same here. Hell, just look at the trailer.
Then again, trailers are normally farmed out to production houses that do nothing but take the best bits of existing material to make a film look far cooler than it actually is. I thought that Bad Company just might be a genre busting film. After all, Anthony Hopkins AND Chris Rock - what could go wrong.
Oh, wait, this movie has Tony in it too. Fuck.
And while some critics, both professional and non, will claim that Marvel is scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point, I have to maintain that I have loved Thor since I was in grade school. Of course, his storyline became much grittier and hard edged during the last 12 years, but I'm not expecting to see that from Branagh's "vision" of the film.
When it comes to comic adaptations, one has to look more at the writer(s) than the director. At this point, we need to be worried.
The writing team's resume includes such cinematic masterpieces as:
Never would have suspected that the comic mini-series by Warren Ellis, arguably one of the most well-rounded and accomplished comic authors in the medium since Chris Claremont, would get this type of treatment.
If for no other reason, you should at least see this because Helen Mirren looks even sexier holding an assault weapon.
Let's get over the pretty visuals and really discuss this
While this film has been highlighted her before, it should be mentioned again that this is a literal and metaphorical continuation of many of the childhood memories that people my age recall from the early 80s.
And yes, the special effects and the trailers prior to this have trigger an emotive response that the producers of the film have desired, I am forcing myself to pause before I claim that this movie is going to be the creme of the 2010 crop.
If this turns out to be nothing more than the 21st century action rehash that I fear it will be - and I think that many of my fears are grounded in reality at this point - I'm going to be seriously pissed. Don't give me a love story and some poorly conceived narrative about family and morals, give me fucking TRON!!!!!
No one that knew his situation could say that they didn't know this was coming. And amazing man has left us.
( I'm not a fan of racism, racist speech, or race baiting, but this has to be one of the greatest scenes that he ever did )
And while some conservatives are using the tragedy of his passing as a political tool, it should be pointed out that he never let his politics get in the way of an incredible performance. He didn't wear his Republican leanings on his sleeve. He was a true American and he will be missed.
I have to be honest - I haven't watched one episode of Lost since season three/episode 4. And while many will discount Abrams for shows like Alias and even the later seasons of Lost, I have to state that J. J. Abrams is probably one of the more original writers/directors working today. I'm really curious as to what his new project holds for us.
A prequel to Cloverfield? An homage to Spielberg ( who's apparently the executive producer ) films of the 70s? I guess we will see.
I'm hearing rumors that Segal and Van Damme turned this down. The action genre box office patron will likely explode when this hit theatres, but if rumors prove to be true then this could have been probably more insane and more of a cash cow than Avatar. Maybe? Who knows now.
This has become all the more evident over the last 10 years or so. From mocumentaries about President Bush being assassinated, to films about actual events happening in Iraq, on down to absurdist, exploitational fare, conservatives just don't get it. The later is the focus of much conservative ire and outrage – Robert Rodriguez’s latest “grindhouse” feature “Machete”.
Machete: Coming in September, it’s sure to be the best anti-Arizona immigration law movie — and anti-law movie for that matter — that your tax dollars can subsidize.
The MOST anti-law ever? Really? What about something like the Godfather films? They were about gangsters that broke the law and killed people on a daily basis? It’s easy to fall into the trap of “the most _____ ever” meme when you really don’t have much of a cogent point to make to begin with. It plays into the fringe’s most base instincts. And, in that regard, it works well in these situations.
The part that really bothers me when conservatives try to read messages into films is that they often don’t see the film itself, rely on other people’s reporting, or look at the trailer as the entirety of the film itself. While the later is done far too often by people of all stripes, and can be somewhat of a fair signifier of what is to come when the picture is actually released, it’s the former avenues of approach that show pure laziness and an inability to be intellectually honest when approaching any material.
I will offer this aside when discussing a film purely on the merits of the trailer – too often those are farmed out to alternate studios to make a film look bigger, flashier, and more intriguing than the finished product. This isn’t to say that Machete is the exception or the rule, as the final cut hasn’t been screened yet. So for conservatives to make such bold accusations regarding the film, I say they should stop prejudging a product they haven’t consumed yet.
But, some may ask, what of the fact that the script was leaked? This is not surprising in the least, as many scripts from many genre films end up being available online due to some production hand stealing a copy ( or what they think is a real copy ) of the source material. But who’s to say it all made the final cut? Certainly not the one stealing intellectual property and most certainly not the one’s reporting it.
Another aspect of the film ( it’s production more specifically ) that conservatives are highlight ( since it’s all about taxpayer money now that Democrats are in power ) is that a portion of the production costs were funded by the Texas Film Commission. To those not familiar with how films are produced around the country, this would more than likely outrage the average conservative. However, since just about every state in the US has a film commission that is designed to help bring in productions, this should come as no surprise. The fact that people are only citing the TFC as a player in this films production is not only dishonest but completely predictable.
Worst of all, Robert Rodriguez’ incendiary race film ‘Machete’ was made, in part, with help from tax incentives and location access provided by the Texas Film Commission, a division of Governor Rick Perry’s Office. A spokesperson from the organization confirmed that Rodriguez had indeed applied for funding.
That information came from lunatic-fringe conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and was highlighted as a portion of the article on Malkin’s website. Odd that someone on Malkin’s site would link to Alex Jones, considering theirtroubledhistory. But hey, it’s all about being as inflammatory and as possible these days – right?
And while Jones and Malkin's fill-in Powers are far too quick to castigate the TFC, it should be pointed out that most states have film commissions and they bring in a large amount of revenue for each location used. The rate of return on taxpayers modest contribution to each commission has been shown to be upwards of 1000 fold. Of course, this is dependant upon the feature being shot, but I think it's safe to assume that when people in Texas know that Robert Rodriguez is shooting a new film that there's going to be a nice amount of money flowing into the area.
But let's be clear about something - this film was based off a spoof trailer that appeared before the Grindhouse feature "Planet Terror" from 2007. Also, Machete was in production before the Arizona law was even proposed, so to claim that this feature film is a direct response to that is completely preposterous.
However, while some will claim that Danny Trejo's comments at the head of the trailer invalidate any claims that this film was expressly produced in order to protest Arizona's draconian law, I would offer this response - he has a right to his freedom of speech.
But let's look at some of the aspects of how this film is being released. After all, not all films that are made get put out in theatres. Guess who the distributor for Machete is? Newscorps film division 20th Century Fox. Why is it important to reveal this? One would think that the company that also owns Fox"News" wouldn't touch this material. After all Fox"News" wentafter Marc Cuban, the distributor of Brian De Palma's film Redatected. Are we going to see the same standard applied here? You're fooling yourself if you say yes.
But Fox didn't just make an offer to Troublemaker Studios and then Rodriguez accept. There was an all out bidding war for this feature. Fox likely knew what they were getting, so Rupert Murdock is to be held responsible for seeing that this movie was released. And when one thinks about it, as this will most assuredly be a hot topic of discussion on Fox"News", Rupert Murdoch will actually be funding both sides of the debate on this. It's a win/win for him regardless.
Here's the trailer conservatives are all twitching about, complete with Trejo's message to Arizona.
Let's look at Trejo's statement ( and likely Rodriguez's endorsement of it ) from a marketing standpoint. You have to admit, it's a pretty good idea, as now more people will be drawn to the theatre to see it, buy merchandise, and by the DVD later on. Not only that, but if conservatives decided to exercise a little integrity and go out and see the film rather than wildly speculate on it's intended meaning, I'm sure that there will be more than a few disappointed souls out there that will have the feeling they should admit they were wrong about the film - just don't expect to hear it directly from them. After all, part of being a conservative is never admitting you were wrong, just jumping to the next conclusion.
Meet Tony Stark — Capitalist Tool. I liked “Iron Man,” and liked it even more the second time I saw it, but it didn’t overwhelm me. And I felt it was a little wishy-washy on questions of capitalism and patriotism.
Not so with “Iron Man 2,” in which Tony Stark is a Randian hero who all but goes Galt when seemingly the only force that could ever defeat him — the U.S. government — begins to make the outrageous demand that his Iron Man technology is somehow public property. Because … well, it’s really important. And everyone knows that when it comes to important stuff, only the government can be trusted to handle it.
While Tony "Iron Man" Stark is a truly unique character from the Marvel Universe, I find it just a little far reaching to call him a "conservative". For starters, he's got the swagger, intellect, and tenacity for actually doing what is right for the country that most conservatives continually espouse but rarely - if ever - practice. And though I will concede that he does display some traits of traditional conservative thought, he in no way comes close to anyone within the modern conservative movement.
People within the Right have been trying very hard for the last few years to classifyfilms as having an overtly conservative thesis. Some of their choices are rather odd and show a serious lack of understanding of not only the multiple levels at which films operate but the storytelling process entirely.
Anyone remember when people were claiming that George W. Bush was just like Batman? It makes about as much sense to call Iron Man a conservative.
If Avatar is the most Satanic film he's ever seen, I'm curious as to what he would have to say about Cannibal Holocaust.
But here's something to think about. His abstract thesis of "spirituality" and "God" seems to be a bit misplaced. After all The Na'vi are very spiritual people. Within the context of the film, they seem more akin to what Christians are supposed to be. They worship a mysterious, invisible, deity. They have a Church ( you know, that really big tree they were all gathered at ). And that Church scene reminded me a great deal of the crowds at a Benny Hinn gathering. So to claim that there is some anti-christian imagery within the characters and actions of the Na'vi is a bit odd.
Of course, in order for a sermon like to to stick in the minds of the congregation, you have to connect it to some pop culture phenomenon. It makes a great deal of sense to me, even though the end result is complete nonsense.
The idea of "the world" being evil and attempting to destroy your Christian "values" is another misplaced metaphor, as the Army and mining company in the film are attempting to destroy the Na'vi's holy place. I'm not entirely sure that Driscoll was making that connection or not, as he started to meander so much that it was no longer even a semi-cogent point.
I did think it was interesting how he started to walk all this back towards the end. Gotta be able to maintain access to all those Devil loving film locations in LA, right?
While Gladiator earned Sir Ridley recognition by The Academy, his portrayal of strife and struggle within the Holy Land ( Kingdom Of Heaven ) was largely ignored, though many film buffs thought it one of the greatest films of the year. I'm quite curious as to how they will view his Robin Hood vision.
Considering that this storyline is an alternate perspective of how modern man has known Robin Hood, I'm curious as to how this will play at theaters. Considering that the average filmgoer cares little for story and more for style, I'm guessing that substance and history isn't going to trump the effects in this film and the fact that it will be largely ignored in smaller markets.
Actor Corey Haim died this morning of an apparent overdose -- possibly accidental -- according to LAPD. He was 38.
Police tell us they were called to St. Joseph's hospital in Burbank, CA shortly before 4AM PT to investigate.
Haim shot to fame in the 80s -- when he co-starred in a number of films, including "The Lost Boys," with Corey Feldman.
Haim reportedly suffered a drug-induced stroke in 2001 and was rushed to the UCLA Medical Center.
Haim also reportedly was in and out of rehab 15 times, but cleaned up in 2004 after moving to Toronto.
And while this is a great loss for 80s cult film fans, we shouldn't be too shocked at this result. While there will surely be jokes about this, as Haim wasn't the greatest celebrity and had a less than pristine life, he will be missed.
When the "effects test" trailer came out for this over a year ago, I was REALLY hyped about this.
Now, I'm a little concerned with this.
The first thing that popped into my head was, "I waited since 1983 for a new Star Wars film and we got 'The Phantom Menace'!?!?!?!? What the fuck are you people doing?"
Are we about to be given a fantastic trailer for a lame film? I'm guessing that this isn't the case, as the director and producer of the latest Tron epic would likely have learned what it's like to offer up the latest installment of a classic film from our childhood. However, am I the only one getting a much more different vibe from the initial trailer ( albeit nothing more than a screen-test ) and the "official" trailer?
I suppose it's to be expected. There has to be a storyline that bridges the first film to the next. There has to be the ubiquitous "hot chicks" in the trailer to get the teen demographic amped-up and ready to descend on the theatres come December - yeah, December. But far too often, the trailers don't live up to the films. And this isn't always a bad thing, but it's most certainly not a good thing.
More often that not, trailers are "farmed out" to other studios to make a film look greater than it actually is. However, since we are talking about a classic film that set the bar for effects and story, I'm hoping ( not knowing for certain, mind you ) that Disney and the producers had enough forethought to realize that they aren't just working on a film, but a piece of history.
That being said, the effects look fucking incredible. I'm just hoping that they don't take the Micheal Bay path and favor style over substance.
