In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

TheCentralScrutinizer · 18 Feb 09 :: 20:22

I love him too, Larry. I actually wrote a big role for him in one of my screenplays way back in 1994.

larry-411 · 18 Feb 09 :: 20:49

Sweet!!! I put him in the same general category as Richard Jenkins -- always dependable, the consummate professional. Jenkins, at least, is finally getting the recognition he deserves.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 18 Feb 09 :: 21:12

What's interesting to me about Ray is that he has kind of transitioned from being the bad guy in a lot of stuff, to being the funny guy. He kills on Reaper. And I can't wait to see him in Infestation. He's got some funny lines in the trailer. He was hilarious in Kyle Rankin's short, Hellholes, too:

When his now demonic little boy asks, "Daddy, can I eat your brains?"
He tearfully replies, "Of course you can, sweetie."

So funny I peed a little.

Simon · 20 Feb 09 :: 23:07

According to /Film, the Legendary Pictures has a password protected listing and synopsis for Superman Unleashed. It mentions that it is a sequel to Superman Returns, which i hope remains a sequel and not a reboot. I loved the last film and i just hope that what route it goes, Sam Huntington remains part of the cast.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 21 Feb 09 :: 05:39

I'm pretty sure it's a sequel. They interviewed whatshisname who plays Superman at the Fanboys premiere in LA week before last, but I didn't really pay attention to what he said too closely. But he was at the premiere to support his friend, Sam Huntington, so you gotta figure that means a little something.

Simon · 24 Feb 09 :: 23:33

Just watched Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which was hilarious. Kristen Bell look as lovely as she always does, but i've got a thing for Mila Kunis so i paid more attention to her. :embarrassed:

larry-411 · 27 Feb 09 :: 02:17

OOpsy...meant to post this here:

"All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" RELEASE DATE? (insert "ya right" here)

TheCentralScrutinizer · 27 Feb 09 :: 02:37

And looky there, the movie's got TWC's grubby fingerprints on it. And it has gotten jerked around? Go figure.

larry-411 · 27 Feb 09 :: 04:04

TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:

And looky there, the movie's got TWC's grubby fingerprints on it. And it has gotten jerked around? Go figure.

Well, not to give them any credit, but they got rid of it almost 2 years ago. 95% of the jerking around has been by Senator, who had never released a move in the U.S. before and had no clue what they were doing.

Senator makes Weinstein look like Fox Searchlight.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 27 Feb 09 :: 04:13

I was thinking more along the lines of why in the world would they buy it only to offload it? Why do they buy things that the don't really believe in? That's exactly what they did with Fanboys.

larry-411 · 27 Feb 09 :: 04:47

TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:

I was thinking more along the lines of why in the world would they buy it only to offload it? Why do they buy things that the don't really believe in? That's exactly what they did with Fanboys.

Good question. They paid $1M for it, which was the single largest purchase of the Toronto Film Festival and really made waves. So what reason could there possibly be?

Well, I wrote a long article about it a couple of years ago but here it is in a nutshell.

The producers wanted a 1000+ screen opening and Harvey agreed that it was mass appeal enough to warrant a wide release. That was a condition of the deal in the first place. But then Bob and Harvey had an internal disagreement over how to market the film (sound familiar?). Bob preferred a smaller, niche opening.

While they argued, the producers shopped around for another distributor who would promise them the 1000+ opening they wanted. When Senator said yes, they bought it from the Weinsteins.

So they never intended to buy it only to get rid of it. Harvey did believe in it. Bob wasn't so confident.

What happened after that is where the real crap comes in. Senator did not know how to release a film, literally. So they just sat on it waiting for "the right window" to come along. Every time they narrowed down a release strategy some other studio would come along and set a date which scared them away. They let one season after another go by, always promising a 1000+ screen release, but being afraid of getting beaten by the competition.

What it ultimately came down to was that the powers-that-be at Senator wanted their inaugural U.S. release to be a hit. They knew that if their very first release was a flop that they would lose their investors and it would essentially doom the company. Thy had to get off on the right foot. So they waited and waited, hoping to pick up a sure thing -- a film with big names that they could release to great fanfare. Then they could afford to take chances on films like Mandy Lane.

They would not admit this to anyone, however, not even the film's producers or director. I only found this out from someone else close to the company.

They eventually got the film they wanted, Fireflies in the Garden, with Julia Roberts, Ryan Reynolds, Willem Dafoe, Emily Watson, Carrie Ann Moss, and Hayden Panetierre. Once they did, the strategy became to release Fireflies first. Then Mandy Lane would be safe.

Something intervened, though. There was a big shakeup at the top due to all the missteps along the way. The head of Senator was ousted. The person brought in to take over all of Senator's release strategy was Mark Urman, who was the head of distribution at ThinkFilm, arguably the most successful indie distributor since the early glory days of Miramax.

At that point the word going around was that Urman looked at Mandy Lane as a loss and wanted to dump it straight to DVD. After all, it had already been released theatrically overseas. It had even come out on DVD overseas already. It was available online. Who would go see it?

But what would they lose by dumping it to a few theaters? Not much. It already has enough buzz to get some people into the theater. It would be advertising for the DVD. So all they had to do was release Fireflies. Well, they botched that one as well and a planned late 2008 release date was pulled. But now a date of June 19 is set for Fireflies, leaving them free to release Mandy Lane about a month later while the company's name is in the news, assuming Fireflies does well.

Last edited by larry-411 (27 Feb 09 :: 04:50)

BiggestChrisMarquetteFan · 27 Feb 09 :: 05:17

I wsih Mandy Lane would be released on DVD already. It sounds like it's never going to be released..

larry-411 · 27 Feb 09 :: 05:33

BiggestChrisMarquetteFan wrote:

I wsih Mandy Lane would be released on DVD already. It sounds like it's never going to be released..

It will be in theaters on July 17, we believe. That's the latest official word from Senator, who just announced their upcoming schedule.

A DVD would follow about 3-4 months later, most likely, which would put it late October at the earliest.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 27 Feb 09 :: 05:46

Thanks for the insight, Larry. That's just so sad when bad companies happen to good films. Senator was just tragically naive. WTF is wrong with Harvey and Bob that they can't be grown-ups and get their shit together?

BiggestChrisMarquetteFan · 27 Feb 09 :: 06:15

It would be amazing if it ends up being released in theaters on July 17. My birthday is July 18 so it would be awesome to see it on my birthday!

larry-411 · 27 Feb 09 :: 21:56

TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:

Thanks for the insight, Larry. That's just so sad when bad companies happen to good films. Senator was just tragically naive. WTF is wrong with Harvey and Bob that they can't be grown-ups and get their shit together?

Haha. I fight with my bro all the time. But I sure as heck wouldn't have gone into business with him lol.

BTW great line: "That's just so sad when bad companies happen to good films." I'll have to remember that one. You could fill a book with those stories.

BiggestChrisMarquetteFan wrote:

It would be amazing if it ends up being released in theaters on July 17. My birthday is July 18 so it would be awesome to see it on my birthday!

July 17 is also the date for 500 Days of Summer:
http://www.pronetworks.org/index.php/in … of_summer/

Last edited by larry-411 (27 Feb 09 :: 21:57)

larry-411 · 02 Mar 09 :: 17:29

I sure hope he turns it down, or at least does some indies between now and then. One tentpole -- maybe two in a row -- but three??? Sorry, but real actors do Hollywood movies in order to do indies, and he'd better get back to doing what got him there in the first place. Knowing Anton I'm sure that's his plan.

Last edited by larry-411 (02 Mar 09 :: 17:30)

TheCentralScrutinizer · 02 Mar 09 :: 17:47

Chris should be up for this movie. I'm so sick of him getting overlooked. I just want to grab Sam & Shani and shake them and yell, "What are you doing to get this man a job!!!" It's just not fair.

TeeJay · 02 Mar 09 :: 18:04

Actually, I'm not sure I'd like to see Chris cast in this. Not that I know the comics or anything, but I'd much rather see him do something "deeper" (can you say drama?) than another big budget action movie. Of course I do realize that this is not a time to be picky if you're a Hollywood actor, looking for a job.

On the FanForum JoA board they're complaining that Chris should be on another TV show as a series regular. The specifically mentioned Supernatural, which I've never seen.

-TeeJay

TheCentralScrutinizer · 02 Mar 09 :: 18:11

I just want him to work. And they way I figure it, it's long past time for him to get out of these little indies and do something more high profile. So he can get noticed. So he can get more work. I want to see him get to the level he was at a few years ago when he was getting sent up for all kinds of stuff. It absolutely breaks my heart every award season to see Emile (and sometimes Paul) sitting there while Chris is nowhere to be found. Someone as talented as he is should not have to struggle the way he does. He is NOT the weakest leg in the Tripod, despite appearances. So yeah, if he got some big jobs that might change.

larry-411 · 02 Mar 09 :: 18:49

Having followed the careers of dozens of actors in a similar league over the years, one can see patterns emerging. There are 3 main routes to go (you guys probably know this already):

1) Indie forever (Trevor Morgan, Ryan Kelley, Rory Culkin -- so far, at least)
2) Indies then Hollywood movies and rarely, if ever, going back (Shia LaBeouf -- so far, at least)
3) Indies, occasional Hollywood movie to keep food on the table and get good scripts coming in, alternating (Johnny Depp, Keanu Reeves, and possibly -- finally -- Emile Hirsch, Michael Angarano, Michael Welch -- although the "Hollywood movies" they did were really indies)

We don't yet know where Anton will fall but I hope it's #3.

To my mind, #3 is the way to go. Depp and Reeves are the most-often cited examples of actors who have used indies as a launching pad to stardom, but stayed true to their roots. That's what most indie actors want. Emile thought he had it when Speed came along. We all know what happened there. But Milk has helped put him on the map, although he has yet to have that really big movie. Angarano got it with Forbidden Kingdom. Welch if you count Twilight. Technically those weren't studio films but it's not about technicalities -- it's about mass appeal and box office.

Anton really scored big and lightning struck twice, to mix metaphors. Just 2 years ago he was a relatively unknown indie actor. Look how rapidly things can change.

Chris is at the level Anton, Emile, Michael Welch, and Michael Angarano were 2 years ago. In fact, just a year ago we saying how Welch needed that jumping-off point and were hoping it would be Twilight, and we were right.

All it takes is one film, and Chris needs that film.

Last edited by larry-411 (02 Mar 09 :: 18:50)

TheCentralScrutinizer · 02 Mar 09 :: 20:54

And nothing he has in the can is THAT film. And nothing we know about on the horizon is going to help. I swear sometimes I think he has the most depressing career I've ever had to follow. Just 4 years ago, he was working his ass off. He could barely keep up. I think that was because he was on a TV show and his face was out there constantly so he was in the minds of casting directors. But everything dried up after the show got canceled and he decided he wanted to concentrate on movies and pass on even interesting TV guest roles.

Bad move or just bad timing? After a year of that, he changed his mind. He was going to go out for pilot season last year, before it got effectively canceled due to the damage done by the writer's strike. Apparently he is going out this year because he's pretty damn hungry for work. Let's just hope SAG doesn't screw up this year's pilot season. I think all it's gonna take to get the ball rolling again is more exposure. People who had forgotten about him just need to be reminded.

It's been a good year so far but on a very small scale. He had a DVD release in January, a theatrical movie release in February, and two more coming in March, one large and one very small. Hopefully, Charlie Banks will hit DVD quickly after it's token release. And we might get the Fanboys DVD in May. With RTWM folloing on DVD possibly in September. Sprinkle in a little Fall TV in there and maybe we're back in business.

Come on Sam & Shani! Get busy!

larry-411 · 02 Mar 09 :: 21:12

I can speak to whether or not his wanting to go back to movies was a "bad move or just bad timing." It was neither. It was bad brains.

FWIW casting directors have a very short memory. They basically look at the last thing you did. So even though Chris has an incredible body of work, as soon as he left TV the reason he couldn't get cast in a movie was because he was seen as a TV actor. Michael was in the exact same boat. Casting directors couldn't get over that. Twilight was a big breakthrough and he was very lucky to get it because he was doomed to only work the small screen.

Chris needs to be bankable, i.e., have a lead role in a film that does good box office. That's when the casting directors will notice him.

It's a catch-22.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 02 Mar 09 :: 21:23

Yeah, well, I'm afraid he's doomed to always fly under the radar at the rate things are going right now, especially with the business being in such bad shape. It's a damn shame especially since he's been working on his appearance and has never looked finer, in my opinion.

larry-411 · 04 Mar 09 :: 21:25

Gigantic (with Paul Dano and Zooey Deschanel) has been selected for the 14th Annual Gen Art Film Festival in New York City on Thursday, April 2 at 7:30 PM.

This unique festival only shows 7 features and 7 shorts, along with 7 premiere parties (open to all). All screenings take place at the Visual Arts Theater on W. 23rd Street between 8th and 9th Avenue.

This will also be the New York Premiere.

The party, open to all who attend, will take place at 1OAK, 453 West 17th St (between 9th & 10th Ave) from 10:00 PM to 12 midnite.
http://www.genart.org/filmfestival/new- … t-premiere

No word on whether or not the actors will be there, but I probably will.

======================

The Answer Man (formerly Arlen Faber), with Lou Taylor Pucci, will screen at the Philadelphia Film Festival on March 30 at the Prince Music Theater.

Prior to the screening, star Jeff Daniels will be receiving the 2009 Artistic Achievement Award for Acting.

The site will be live on March 9 but you can view a pdf copy or Flash copy of the Program Guide:

http://www.phillycinefest.com/

Lou will try to make it. So will I.

============================

A premiere Philadelphia screening of Explicit Ills, with Paul Dano and Lou Taylor Pucci, will take place on March 13 at Ritz at the Bourse. The film was shot here.

Philly native Mark Webber is due to attend.

================================

Chris Marquette Message Board

#851 18 Feb 09 :: 20:22

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#852 18 Feb 09 :: 20:49

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#853 18 Feb 09 :: 21:12

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#854 20 Feb 09 :: 23:07

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#855 21 Feb 09 :: 05:39

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#856 24 Feb 09 :: 23:33

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#857 27 Feb 09 :: 02:17

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#858 27 Feb 09 :: 02:37

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#859 27 Feb 09 :: 04:04

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#860 27 Feb 09 :: 04:13

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#861 27 Feb 09 :: 04:47

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#862 27 Feb 09 :: 05:17

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#863 27 Feb 09 :: 05:33

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#864 27 Feb 09 :: 05:46

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#865 27 Feb 09 :: 06:15

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#866 27 Feb 09 :: 21:56

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#867 02 Mar 09 :: 17:29

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#868 02 Mar 09 :: 17:47

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#869 02 Mar 09 :: 18:04

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#870 02 Mar 09 :: 18:11

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#871 02 Mar 09 :: 18:49

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#872 02 Mar 09 :: 20:54

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#873 02 Mar 09 :: 21:12

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#874 02 Mar 09 :: 21:23

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

#875 04 Mar 09 :: 21:25

Re: In Praise of Chris's Colleagues

Board footer