As reported by just about every site in my blawglines (Pulp 2.0, for instance), Marvel Studios is apparently going to start up a writing program – a one year deal to develop new talent for Marvel movies. But check out the quote about the terms:

“Among other things, the contract gives Marvel ownership over everything the writers create during the one year term of [the] deal, plus a first look and last refusal to any and all projects the writers have previously written or will write for 24 months in the future.”

I’ve heard this complaint coming out of the Marvel factory – about their draconian terms on artists who create and maintain their domination in the comic book world. Maybe getting a real start is worth this kind of deal. I guess if the money they pay for that year allows you to live somewhat comfortably, it could be. On the other hand – you have to come to them with EVERYTHING for the next two years? Couldn’t they control their competition to an extent that way? And thereby arbitrarily wreck you? Would other studios want to deal with you if they knew Marvel had this control over your work? I wonder.

What do you think?

Can TV be scary? Most likely not. With all the weight behind Masters of Horror, it never quite got all the way there. Still, I like this concept. Even though CBS markets it as a “mystery”, it’s pretty obviously a slasher series in 13 parts. Someone dies in each episode. It makes sense. I hope the slasher concept translates well. There won’t be much blood, but then there was hardly any blood in the original Halloween, so that’s not excuse for not being scary.

The only other problem I see is the title. Unless they really market the crap out of this, I wouldn’t be surprised if people see this title in the TV Guide and think it akin to Falcon Crest or Melrose Place. It kind of sounds like a soap, no? Why not ‘Til Death Do Us Part’ or ‘Invitation to Murder’. Bam – two right off the top of my head. Or even ‘Craven Island’ or ‘Death Island’. BAM! Two more!

I’ll say the only thing I really missed was that Daniel wasn’t in that great owl snow pod costume, flying around the arctic. Otherwise, it was what it was. Beware for spoilers, now…

1. Which was better, the book or the movie or the animated book/movie?

2. Do you think it would’ve been better if Snyder smoked as much opium as Alan Moore?

3. Did Patrick Wilson make the character of Daniel even better than it was in the book?

4. If you had cut the movie, how long would it be?

5. The ending didn’t really add up, did it?

read more »

Here’s some old junk that I co-wrote and edited five or so years ago now. Keep in mind we had to make this, soup to nuts, in a weekend. Good fun. Enjoy.

Glancing at Epstein’s blog this morning, I see mention of a site called Beneflix.com. The idea with Beneflix is that, as a filmmaker, you get financial support from the users of the site and in return they get to vote on what happens in your movie. So, in effect, Beneflix is bringing together the ass ends of the studio system and the independent world – you’ll still have no money to work with and you won’t have any control over how you tell your story.

That idea that Keith Gordon was pushing a few years back seemed much cooler – to buy stock in his movie ‘Billy Dead’ through an IPO and then hope for a hit. The stock holders have no say over his movie, but if it succeeds, they are rewarded for their support. This should be an easier thing to do. Though, that was five years ago… and there is no ‘Billy Dead’ to show for it.

That’s the saddest thing of all – The Beneflix Corporation will probably generate more material than a talented filmmaker…

This is a piece I did as a part of a larger series toward the end of last year. Did you know about these squabbles over the Rosetta Stone? Well – if you like squabbles, welcome to squabble city.

Was a time I put glue on my fingers just to watch it dry – but this is different.