Southland Tales
Moderator: yoloswegmaster
- Saarijas
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:03 pm
- Location: CT
- Contact:
- Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
-
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am
These are English-language films from well-established American directors, yet all the major US distributors passed following their market screenings at Cannes. Sony bought Bunny and Southland once they had flexed their muscles and exerted some power over Gallo/Kelly. This is the first time Lynch has been without a major US distributor since Eraserhead.Antoine Doinel wrote:The Brown Bunny (which ends in a graphic blowjob), Inland Empire (three hours of Lynch-drenched surrealism) and Southland Tales aren't being "rejected" so much as not being sought after with the same fervor as more marketable "micro-indies" from the "independent" arms of the major studios.
Last edited by Nothing on Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Again, not sure what the surprise is here, but if you let Sony buy your experimental road picture and expecting them to keep their hands off, you would have to be remarkably naive. Even Gallo should know that going with a smaller distributor would've let him keep his original cut intact (albeit for less money, but sometimes that's the tradeoff). But as I recall he voluntarily hacked half an hour off the film after it received brutal reviews at Cannes. I can't speak for Kelly's film as I have yet to see it, but by most accounts it was a complete disaster. He should be thankful that Sony is even giving him more money to "finish" the thing up.
As for Lynch, he came to an agreement with Studio Canal to distribute the film theatrically in North America by himself. He was thinking to do the same with the DVD, until he reached an agreement with Rhino that would let him oversee every detail of the package and release.
As for Lynch, he came to an agreement with Studio Canal to distribute the film theatrically in North America by himself. He was thinking to do the same with the DVD, until he reached an agreement with Rhino that would let him oversee every detail of the package and release.
-
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am
Yes, Gallo caved in and played the game, trashing his own movie and courting the approval of Roger Ebert and Sony in a sickening (albeit limitedly successful) fashion. And it is Gallo who is now sitting on the 120m cut. No-one else has a copy and it seems likely that it doesn't even exist anymore...
But the "complete disaster" of Southland Tales is based on what? The film hasn't yet been given a chance to perform commercially. Knee-jerk Cannes reviews make for great toilet paper, but I can't see them reaching the target North American audience for the film.
I don't even like the film that much, but the fact is that Kelly has a huge fan-base and it was always likely to play well with this audience and make a lot of money. 20 minutes of edits here or there aren't going to make a difference, but what might now have a negative impact is the humongous delay and the effect this has had on the momentum/hype surrounding the film.
If we want to be specific about Lynch: in 2005 he sold worldwide sales rights to INLAND EMPIRE to Studio Canal for a large sum of money following a bidding war. The interest in the film was not suprising, given the success of Mulholland Drive. When INLAND EMPIRE then played in the Venice and New York film festivals it received many good reviews but, nevertheless, the appropriate US distributors (including those had previously distributed Lynch's work uncut) refused to bite unless an hour was sliced from the film. Fearing for their sizable investment, Studio Canal then attempted to pressure Lynch into making cuts, pulling the film from all festival, public and market screenings in territories they hadn't already sold. In a compromise deal, Lynch agreed to reimburse a sizable chunk of their original MG and Studio Canal returned the US rights and resumed festival screenings in Europe and Asia. This deal will inevitably have left Lynch out of pocket, but his work survives unscathed and has had a release of sorts in his domestic market so respect where it is due.
Where we disagree, I guess, is that I feel it is a great shame that a film artist may no longer earn their stripes, in the manner of a Kubrick or a 70s-90s Malick or Lynch. It seems now that it doesn't matter who you are, or what your track record is, if your latest film doesn't conform to some executive notion of mainstream audience appeasement then you're going to get screwed.
But the "complete disaster" of Southland Tales is based on what? The film hasn't yet been given a chance to perform commercially. Knee-jerk Cannes reviews make for great toilet paper, but I can't see them reaching the target North American audience for the film.
I don't even like the film that much, but the fact is that Kelly has a huge fan-base and it was always likely to play well with this audience and make a lot of money. 20 minutes of edits here or there aren't going to make a difference, but what might now have a negative impact is the humongous delay and the effect this has had on the momentum/hype surrounding the film.
If we want to be specific about Lynch: in 2005 he sold worldwide sales rights to INLAND EMPIRE to Studio Canal for a large sum of money following a bidding war. The interest in the film was not suprising, given the success of Mulholland Drive. When INLAND EMPIRE then played in the Venice and New York film festivals it received many good reviews but, nevertheless, the appropriate US distributors (including those had previously distributed Lynch's work uncut) refused to bite unless an hour was sliced from the film. Fearing for their sizable investment, Studio Canal then attempted to pressure Lynch into making cuts, pulling the film from all festival, public and market screenings in territories they hadn't already sold. In a compromise deal, Lynch agreed to reimburse a sizable chunk of their original MG and Studio Canal returned the US rights and resumed festival screenings in Europe and Asia. This deal will inevitably have left Lynch out of pocket, but his work survives unscathed and has had a release of sorts in his domestic market so respect where it is due.
Where we disagree, I guess, is that I feel it is a great shame that a film artist may no longer earn their stripes, in the manner of a Kubrick or a 70s-90s Malick or Lynch. It seems now that it doesn't matter who you are, or what your track record is, if your latest film doesn't conform to some executive notion of mainstream audience appeasement then you're going to get screwed.
- chaddoli
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
There is a lot of misinformation being thrown around about The Brown Bunny.
Firstly, Gallo didn't "sell out" to a major studio. Wellspring distributed The Brown Bunny in the US and THEN Sony released the dvd with the same cut Wellspring released. Sony did not cut up The Brown Bunny.
Secondly, and this is straight from Gallo so judge its truth for yourself, but the Cannes cut was a rought cut. Gallo was forced to premiere the film early by his Japanese investors and the cut he turned in was not finished. He even continued editing after he sent the cut to the festival before it screened. Believe what you will of that, he speaks about it thoroughly on the commentary track.
Incidentally, I think it was the best film of its year.
Firstly, Gallo didn't "sell out" to a major studio. Wellspring distributed The Brown Bunny in the US and THEN Sony released the dvd with the same cut Wellspring released. Sony did not cut up The Brown Bunny.
Secondly, and this is straight from Gallo so judge its truth for yourself, but the Cannes cut was a rought cut. Gallo was forced to premiere the film early by his Japanese investors and the cut he turned in was not finished. He even continued editing after he sent the cut to the festival before it screened. Believe what you will of that, he speaks about it thoroughly on the commentary track.
Incidentally, I think it was the best film of its year.
- miless
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm
and as far as Inland Empire goes... Studio Canal got involved when Lynch approached them looking for a backer to finish the film (not buy distribution rights)
the distribution rights were part of it, but they never guaranteed they would distribute it (and Lynch happily bought the distribution rights back so that he could control every aspect of the film from pre to post and then some)
the distribution rights were part of it, but they never guaranteed they would distribute it (and Lynch happily bought the distribution rights back so that he could control every aspect of the film from pre to post and then some)
-
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am
I have not been spreading misinformation.
By all accounts, Gallo was very happy with his cut before the Cannes premiere, besides maybe a couple of small tweaks that might have made it into the theatrical release or not. It certainly wasn't a "rough cut". That line is something he went along with - and perhaps even started to believe himself - after the disasterous Cannes reception and subsequent failure to sell in ANY territories. Literally, they had made zero sales after Cannes on a $10m movie - a complete disaster. In an attempt to reinvigorate interest, he drastically reduced the more avant-garde edges of the film and re-premiered at Toronto, where he also then made up with Ebert, who was now able to pretend that Gallo had taken some of his advice. From a financial perspective, it was a wonderful piece of damage control. The sales were made. Unfortunately, it would seem that Gallo now feels he has to dismiss/supress the original cut to maintain face. Yes, the 90 minute cut is pretty darn good, but the 120 minute cut is far superior.
IE: Studio Canal came onto INLAND EMPIRE as the worldwide sales agent, not as the distributor (I never said any different).
Because the film was the subject of a bidding war, Studio Canal paid a large cash MG (minimum guarantee) for the film, which Lynch may or may not have used to complete the post-production, I don't know about that detail. Anyway, the idea is that the sales agent can recoup this MG + their expenses from the sales that they make to distributors around the world. Once the MG and expenses have been recouped, they continue to take a comission of between 15-20% on the fees and receipts paid by the various distributors. The largest and most important territories to sell are North America and Japan (then France, the UK, Germany and Scandinavia).
Until a distribution deal has been signed in a particular territory, the sales agent retains the rights within that territory. In this instance, all the US distributors were demanding cuts before they would buy the rights but only Lynch could approve these cuts and he was refusing to do so. Thus, Studio Canal were prevented from making the all-important North American sale (undoubtedly the lynchpin of their recoupment strategy). In an attempt to pressure Lynch into playing ball with the US distributors, they announced that they would no longer be screening the film in its current version and pulled it from festivals in the territories they still controlled - the London Film Festival and the Sitges Film Festival to name two. Still refusing to budge on the cuts, Lynch's solution was to re-purchase the North American rights himself, thus appeasing Studio Canal. This is not a decision that would have been financially advantageous to himself, so I doubt the word "happy" would apply.
By all accounts, Gallo was very happy with his cut before the Cannes premiere, besides maybe a couple of small tweaks that might have made it into the theatrical release or not. It certainly wasn't a "rough cut". That line is something he went along with - and perhaps even started to believe himself - after the disasterous Cannes reception and subsequent failure to sell in ANY territories. Literally, they had made zero sales after Cannes on a $10m movie - a complete disaster. In an attempt to reinvigorate interest, he drastically reduced the more avant-garde edges of the film and re-premiered at Toronto, where he also then made up with Ebert, who was now able to pretend that Gallo had taken some of his advice. From a financial perspective, it was a wonderful piece of damage control. The sales were made. Unfortunately, it would seem that Gallo now feels he has to dismiss/supress the original cut to maintain face. Yes, the 90 minute cut is pretty darn good, but the 120 minute cut is far superior.
IE: Studio Canal came onto INLAND EMPIRE as the worldwide sales agent, not as the distributor (I never said any different).
Because the film was the subject of a bidding war, Studio Canal paid a large cash MG (minimum guarantee) for the film, which Lynch may or may not have used to complete the post-production, I don't know about that detail. Anyway, the idea is that the sales agent can recoup this MG + their expenses from the sales that they make to distributors around the world. Once the MG and expenses have been recouped, they continue to take a comission of between 15-20% on the fees and receipts paid by the various distributors. The largest and most important territories to sell are North America and Japan (then France, the UK, Germany and Scandinavia).
Until a distribution deal has been signed in a particular territory, the sales agent retains the rights within that territory. In this instance, all the US distributors were demanding cuts before they would buy the rights but only Lynch could approve these cuts and he was refusing to do so. Thus, Studio Canal were prevented from making the all-important North American sale (undoubtedly the lynchpin of their recoupment strategy). In an attempt to pressure Lynch into playing ball with the US distributors, they announced that they would no longer be screening the film in its current version and pulled it from festivals in the territories they still controlled - the London Film Festival and the Sitges Film Festival to name two. Still refusing to budge on the cuts, Lynch's solution was to re-purchase the North American rights himself, thus appeasing Studio Canal. This is not a decision that would have been financially advantageous to himself, so I doubt the word "happy" would apply.
- Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Kelly's "Southland Tales" Coming to U.S. Theaters in November
Samuel Goldwyn Films has announced the U.S. release of Richard Kelly's "Southland Tales." The company is planning a theatrical debut on November 9 in partnership with Destination Films and Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group. The film, which debuted at last year's Cannes Film Festival and has since been completed, stars Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Seann William Scott, Justin Timberlake, Mandy Moore, Cheri Oteri, Kevin Smith and Amy Poehler among others, with original music by Moby, a music sequence by Timberlake and a soundtrack that includes The Killers, The Pixies, Muse, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Radiohead, and Jane's Addiction. Set in the near future in Los Angeles, July 2008, the film is described as, "an epic story that takes place over the course of three days, culminating in a massive 4th of July celebration." It features, "Boxer Santaros (The Rock), an action star stricken with amnesia, Krysta Now (Gellar), an adult film star developing her own reality television project, and Roland Taverner (Scott), a Hermosa Beach police officer who holds the key to a vast conspiracy." "The time and additional visual effects that were added have allowed me to achieve my original vision for 'Southland Tales," Kelly said in a statement. "The fans' response has been overwhelming and I anticipate that moviegoers will respond enthusiastically." The filmmaker will be at Comic-Con in San Diego this Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 to sign autographs and greet fans. --Eugene Hernandez
- Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
- Contact:
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
The trailer will appear online and on TV during the first week of September. Here is a gallery of stills from the film, including some of the final special effects shots.
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Here's is the final, extremely ugly, one sheet.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Worth reading the comments on the poster for this gem:Antoine Doinel wrote:Here's is the final, extremely ugly, one sheet.
Hah! "This is the way the world ends." Hysterical, and as funky and apocalyptic as Donnie Darko.
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: NJ
They should've left out the concept art. Showing the stars of the film is the only way this film will sell...Antoine Doinel wrote:Here's is the final, extremely ugly, one sheet.
-
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
-
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:47 pm
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Here is what I could gather from the words in that barrage of images at the beginning of the trailer:
American Hiroshima
Serpentine Dream Theory
America Reinstates Draft
Doomsday Scenario Interface
Resurrection
Oh yeah, and Jon Lovitz wearing a pair of futuristic shades....
This looks like a hybrid of The Truman Show, Brazil and Idiocracy as casted by the readers of Teen People.
American Hiroshima
Serpentine Dream Theory
America Reinstates Draft
Doomsday Scenario Interface
Resurrection
Oh yeah, and Jon Lovitz wearing a pair of futuristic shades....
This looks like a hybrid of The Truman Show, Brazil and Idiocracy as casted by the readers of Teen People.
- Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
- Contact:
I'm not bothered by the casting at all - Mandy Moore! - but I just hope it doesn't devolve into being too hip for itself. Things could get worse for Kelly, though - would we rather him be the next Aronofsky or the next Kevin Smith? (I'd even settle for the next Ridley Scott as long as the movies stay good.)
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- chaddoli
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
- Hrossa
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:11 pm
- Location: Prince Edward Island
- Contact:
I'm excited to see this. Definitely more so after seeing the trailer. And I'm not sure why the film is getting so much hate heaped upon it when the release cut hasn't (to my knowledge) even been reviewed by anyone yet. Sure, it may be some kind of ridiculous, bloated mess, but it seems there's a pretty good chance it'll be the kind of mess I'd gladly see before dozens of other neatly constructed options at the theater this fall.
I'm going to keep my jury out of the courtroom until I've sat through 2 1/2 hours of Sarah Michelle Gellar as a porn star/political talk show host and The Rock as the Savior of the Universe all narrated by a greasy, scar-faced, gun-toting Justin Timberlake.
I'm going to keep my jury out of the courtroom until I've sat through 2 1/2 hours of Sarah Michelle Gellar as a porn star/political talk show host and The Rock as the Savior of the Universe all narrated by a greasy, scar-faced, gun-toting Justin Timberlake.