Can pissing off the original fanbase of an existing property lead to a massive box office bomb?

Truly outrageous... Box office results.

Pan got... Well, panned.

In these past couple of months, Hollywood tried rebooting two very different franchises, albeit those with a devoted fan following. Both films ended up a disaster at the box office and killed any possible chance of a sequel or merchandise cash in. What the hell happened? Well, let's take a look at each film. The first is a "modern re-imagining," Jem and the Holograms, a popular science-fiction cartoon from the 80a and the other is the simply titled Pan, a first in a proposed series of prequels detailing the origin of Peter Pan and his feud with Captain Hook. The fanbase violently rejected both films and the rest of the potential audiences didn't see any interest in a rehash of an old fairy or a another vapid teen drama with no real star power dealing about the ups and downs of a girl band.

"Synergy," a powerful supercomputer capable of creating entire
virtual worlds was almost entirely dropped from the Jem movie
and turned into something drastically different.

So what happened? Simple. Both films managed to alienate their built-in fanbase before they even opened with trailers blatantly showing that the filmmakers completely thrown out the original materials and went into their own direction. Jem, at least the original version, was indeed about a girl band, but it also dealt with high staked globe trotting adventures, sci-fi whimsy, espionage, and everything else that made 80s cartoons so entertaining. The film version has none of that. Gone is the holographic supercomputer, along with Jem's secret identity, the orphanage she looks after, and her band's arch rivals The Misfits, known as one of few Saturday Morning Cartoon villains that actually flat out tried to murder the main characters, often on a weekly basis. Instead we are treated to a bland teen drama of four friends making it big on YouTube. Other aspects of the show are also scrambled, such as the main antagonist's gender and the remaining characters' roles and relationships. Let's just say most fans were not pleased and lost all incentive to head to the theaters on opening weekend, and the film ended up grossing only 2/5 of it's whopping $5 million dollar budget. Another, more personal issue that I have with Jem is that it seems that the Hollywood powers that be don't take "girl centric" properties seriously. Movies like Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and various superior films get lavish big budgets showered on them, but a movie like Jem has no opportunity to show up its original epic scale because of its paltry budget. That turns the whole affair into a self-fulfilling prophecy, that girl-centric big screen franchises always "suck." And that is the sad, depressing, gruesome tale of Jem. But at least it gave us this "jem" of a parody on YouTube:

Now on to Pan. Where to begin? Unlike Jem, it had a huge budget, star power, and dazzlingly amazing visuals in its trailer, yet it tanked even worse, possibly taking down the careers of the art-house darling director Joe Wright and star Hugh Jackman. So many things went wrong here, the least of which was Joe Wright channeling his aforementioned "art-house" roots and adding songs by Nirvana and the Ramones into what is supposed to be a whimsical children's film. Hugh Jackman's overly "glamorous" and "flamboyant" portrayal of Blackbeard, a real life persona that has literally no Peter Pan myth, also seemed off putting. Another alienating factor was casting white actors as the Native American tribe that lives in Neverland. Overall, the film just didn't feel like it was part of the Peter Pan universe, something that has been loved and adored by children of all ages for decades. Joe Wright's brightly colored "Rococo" style production design went over the intended audience's heads. As critics pointed out, this strange heady brew of deviation turned the film into a "something for nobody," it turned into a white elephant that no one really cared to see. And thus, a colossal bomb was created and only time will tell if it destroyed any of the people involved with the film and if Hollywood will go back to Neverland.

And now comes my opinion as to where both films coincide in terms of flopping. They are both origin stories. Dull, generic, by-the-numbers cliched origin stories. Ever since Batman Begins, studios have been tripping over themselves to create gritty and serious films about famous pop culture characters' humble beginnings. So far we had to endured various "explanatory" prequels for King Arthur, Robin Hood, Spider-Man (TWICE!), Wolverine, and Maleficent. I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting. Oh, right, there's also that the first season of Netflix series Daredevil, which is almost a textbook example of an "origin prequel." We, the built-in fanbase and the audience already familiar with the subject, have to endure an entire film until the very end when the character we came to see actually becomes the character we came to see. Jem literally teased it with us by showing a fake trailer during the credits of everything we wanted to see (Synergy Supercomputer, epic adventures, the Misfits) for a proposed sequel, which of course now will never get made. Pan makes this even worse by setting up the ending to lead into yet another prequel film that doesn't even begin to scratch the eventual characterizations of Peter Pan and Captain Hook.

If there is one positive thing to co

me of these two flops is the end of the insipid "origin prequel."

~Evgueni.

Seeking an expert for the end of the world... And a business plan appraisal.

I'd like to digress from my usual entertainment industry rants and discuss something dryer, yet more important. So please entertain me for this one blog post.

As some of you might have read on my Tumblr page, I am in the process of finishing my master's degree with Full Sail University and am currently focusing on completing a business plan for my production company, Thanatos Films. I decided to look over several industry experts and see what their views on the value of a business plan are.

Kevin Gieger

First, I'd like to begin with Kevin Gieger. Kevin is an industry veteran that is responsible for many visual effects in Hollywood films, as well computer animation with a lot of Disney films. Although his IMDb profile is rather slim, he is still actively working behind the scenes. Kevin now runs his own digital animation production company called "Magic Dumpling" and lectures aspiring entrepreneurs who would like to begin their own businesses and encourages them to proceed according to their development activity plan and to deviate from it. My favorite point that Kevin made is that during a pitch, one must always have a good business plan to go hand in hand with a creative plan, which is crucial when pitching a film or a television show to a potential investor.

Chuck Blakeman

The second expert I'd like to look over is Chuck Blakeman, mostly because he is so radically different from all the other experts I read about. I could find a whole lot about his past, but from what I did find, I saw that Chuck Blakeman is successful entrepreneur and business mentor. His view on business plans is very unique in that he believes that a business plan is a waste of time since it's something we use to plan for the future, yet we cannot predict the future. Chuck feels that a business plan is something that needs to be implemented in broad strokes and perfected as it goes.

What I gathered from these two radically different industry experts is that there is really no wrong advice to when starting a business plan, as long as you know what you are doing. I do agree I must have a financial vision for my idea, just like Kevin Gieger suggested, but I must not also let my business plan bog me down and not allow me to find other creative ways to succeed with my endeavor, just like Chuck Blakeman suggests.

~Evgueni Mlodik.

Yes, Hollywood is a sexist place and industry. Have we just now noticed?

From http://media.santabanta.com/joke/visuals/9575.jpg

In recent weeks, such noted female actors as Carey Mulligan, Rose McGowan, Rachel Weisz, and the ilk have condemned the blatant and often disgusting institutionalized system of sexism that has plagued the film and television industry in Hollywood since its inception almost one hundred years ago. Yes, they are correct and yes, that is a huge problem, but… Why are we only now noticing this trend?

Hollywood has always been a hellhole of chauvinism, sexism, and debauchery. It’s what it’s known for, so why the shock and righteous indignation now? Has our culture finally “woken up?” Hardly. I think this is just another trendy topic to feel offended about, like grade school bullying and transgender struggles, to name a few. And that I think is a major problem. If a topic simply becomes trendy and fashionable to address, it then becomes marginalized. Yes, it’shorrible that Adam Sandler’s leading ladies haven’t gotten younger since themid-90s or the prevailing system of casting couch exploits and abuses aspiringactresses in the field, but what can we do about it besides just making angry blog posts, letting established actresses vent about the issues via social media, and “starting a conversation?”

I know I’m being a hypocrite since I’m doing the same thing; complaining about an issue online. However, I hope this blog starts a whole other “conversation” about the subject of sexism in Hollywood. How to stop it? What can we do to address the situation without glossing it over and letting it become marginalized. I fear that eventually the Carey Mulligan and Rose McGowan stories will blow over and people will forget about this huge issue, however they shouldn’t. First thing that needs to be done is to break down the system. Studios need to realize that times are changing and certain old school thinkers need to be let go. If more modern thinking female executives would join the Hollywood force, I feel the exploitation of women would drop, or at least even out the field with male talent.

What we must remember is that sex, power, scandals, and filmmaking have always been a heavy brew that makes up Hollywood. These things have been happening for decades andrepeatedly “exposed,” but nothing good ever came of it. It’s time to take a different approach  if we want changes

~Evgueni Mlodik

When Brand Protection Turns Depraved

The "Kardashians of Christ."

A lot can be said about the Duggar Family and their fall from grace. These “Kardashions of Krist,” so to speak (yes, I know I misspelled “Christ”) were the right wing media darlings for years, since their first TV special on TLC back in 2008 that eventually lead to a reality tv series deal called 17 Kids and Counting, that later evolved into 18 Kids and Counting, and 19 Kids and Counting. You get the picture. However, if you don’t, let me elaborate. Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar are a wealthy family living in Arkansas. They seem to adhere to some quasi-Baptist and Evangelical form of Christianity that is known as “Quiverfull,” essentially your basic far-right wing fanatical version of conservative Christianity that also promotes extreme procreation, having as many an offspring as possible. The Duggars were extremely fortunate that a huge chunk of their progeny were twins, which is a rather efficient and quicker way to procreate. Due to the novelty of having so many children, the Duggars ended up with a reality show deal which made them even wealthier, while their religious andleanings made them the darlings of the Right-Wing media. The family have rubbed elbows with such Right-Wing “icons” as Mike Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Glenn Beck, and the ilk. They were proud supporters of Huckabee’s presidential campaign and Michelle Duggar, contrary to the biblical teachings of women keeping silent, has done a lot of political lobbying withinArkansas to strip GLTBQ members of any semblance of human rights and respect, but I digress…

Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, the reality tv darlings of
Right-Wing Christian media.

19 Kids and Counting was a gigantic hit for TLC. With most overt political and religious views of the family edited out for broadcast, the show presented Duggars as a wholesome, eccentric, fun, and loving family. Their merchandise deals went through the roof, there were talks of spin-offs chronicling their older children’s own marriage and families, but then lightening struck. In May of 2015, someone leaked an old police report that revealed thattheir oldest son, Josh, repeatedly molested three of his sisters when he was fifteen (they were around five and seven) and their babysitter while they slept over an unknown period between 2002-2003. The media erupted into chaos; it was a case of schaudenfraude run amuck, with everyone virtually forgetting the victims and gloating that a member of this righteous and wholesome family that shoved their “traditional values” down everyone’s throats was essentially a sex offender, covered up and enabled by his parents. Before this, Josh Duggar was a beacon to the right wing movement. He was offered a high paying position of the far-right religious group “Family Research Counsel” and was a huge political lobbyist, endorsing many politicians and actively campaigning to end civil right progress for LGTBQ citizens, as well trample all over marriage equality, but now he was exposed as a fraud. He, who constantly lamented about the disintegration of traditional values and families being disintegrated, turned out to be a pervert. Josh had to resign from his high ranking position with the FRC and he publicly confessed to what he did. Oddly enough, theymaintained some strong support from the Christian community, many of who dismissed Josh’s actions as a “teenager’s whimsy.”

Until May of 2015, the Duggar brand was
going strong, selling many books,
t-shirts, and the ilk.

Nonetheless, the Duggar brand crumbled. TLC suspended the show before canceling it all together and the Duggars went into damage control overdrive, giving interviewson the right leaning Fox News, having their daughters stand up for Josh on live television, and heavily promoting the more "innocent" aspects of their family, like the older daughters' marriages and pregnancies. Some hope remained to revive their television income with a series of spin-offs and they still had sales from their merchandise, but in August of the same year as the molestation allegations, another bomb dropped.

Joshua James Duggar, the man who
eventually toppled the Duggar Brand.

On August 20th, 2015, the online hook-up site for married couples, Ashley Madison, got hacked and the perpetrators leaked over 38 million subscriber names online, one of which was, wait for it, Joshua James Duggar himself. Another fall out ensued, this time putting the final nail in the Duggar brand of a wholesome Christian family. The leak unravelled even more dirt on Josh, detailing him cheating on his wife and having a secret Facebook account he used to contact strippers and prostitutes. This time, no damage control can help the Duggars.

Now, you may wonder, what is the point of this diatribe if my blog concerns mostly entertainment related news and events? Well, you see, I don't see the story of the Rise and Fall of the Duggar Family as just a tale of self righteous hypocrisy, humility, and religious controversy. Sure, it's all there, but looking at it from a more practical (and some may say cynical) perspective, this is a classic tale of not protecting your brand. This is as much TLC's fault as it is the Duggars. When you design a franchise, like 19 Kids and Counting, make sure you scrubbed and found any dirt on your subject that could risk the quality of your brand. If TLC's producers dug deeper, they would've found out about the police report and that some years earlier, Oprah Winfrey cancelled the Duggars' appearance on her show because her fact checks discovered about Josh's past. Josh Duggar should never have been promoted as a wholesome family man with so much dirt, the show needed to focus on other members of the family without the dark past, or

the family themselves shouldn't have been offered a contract and turned into right-wing celebrities, since their sordid sexual secrets were the antithesis to what they were marketing. The lesson here is, essentially, very bad market research and brand protection. TLC created their Duggar brand without any prior research and watched it go up in flames. It's not the first time this happened, if any of us can recall the Honey Boo Boo scandal. Now they need to cut their financial losses once and move to the next freak show that would create a good reality show, hopefully without any creepy sexual scandal in tow. Fool me once, TLC, fool me twice... Someone on their development team needs to get fired.

~Evgueni Mlodik

Legal Drama is the Real Drama

There's no business like show business and there is no business like show business litigation. It's been a while since I posted anything on my blog, so what better way to celebrate my grand return than with a look at some of the legal troubles within the film entertainment industry?

First up is the little heard of scandal regarding The Purge franchise. The writer and producers of The Purge have lost the motion to dismiss idea theft charges by one Douglas Jordan-Benel, who claims the concept of the film was stolen from his spec script, titled Settler's Day. Now, both parties have to head to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case seems rather murky and convoluted. When Jordan-Benel submitted his script to various studios, there was an implied contract that he would be compensated if his ideas were to be used, which, obviously, seems to have been broken. However, the people behind The Purge seems to have countered those claims by using California's Anti-SLAPP statute, which is something used to weed out frivolous lawsuits. Under the stature, a judge can throw out a case if he feels the likelihood of the plaintiff winn

ing is slim. Obviously, this didn't work and the court case progressed. Now, Hollywood is always prone to idea theft and intellectual property claims, but this court case, if won by Douglas Jordan-Benel, might open the floodgates and set precedents that will allow many people with small evidence to claim idea t
heft and file lawsuits, which could cost the industry millions in legal fees and settlements.

It's hard for me to judge this situation because I haven't read Settler's Day, but I've seen The First, a horror film about a Neo-Utopian society taking over the United States in the near future, a feat accomplished by allowing the citizens run amok and murder, maim, and plunder for one night out of the year. It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion it was a very mediocre film. However, I must point out that I've seen the same concept used in an old Star Trek episode, a Latin American art-house film, and even an episode of The Powerpuff Girls. Not to mention where this concept seems to have come from, the Spartan practice of Crypteia. My point being is that this concept isn't exactly new or original, therefore if the script of The Purge did copy Settler's Day in more ways than just the premise, I fully support Douglas Jordan-Benel's lawsuit and hope he wins his due royalties and credit. It might affect Hollywood in the long run, but it'll teach the studios that settling and buying can be a lot less of a hassle than nonchalantly walking off with other people's scripts.

Now, here's another interesting case It seems the Zorro trademark was deemed invalid in Europe! Seems Sony Pictures was slapped in the face by the European Union copyright court that stated that the name "Zorro" is not distinctive enough to warrant a trademark. The mess began when Robert Gabell, an American composer, contested Sony's copyright name of Zorro because of his stage musical, titled Z - The Musical of Zorro (Not to be confused with another musical version of Zorro, both of which are getting staged and left and right across Europe, to much audience confusion.) Gabble claims that since character of Zorro comes from two public domain sources (1919 novella and a 1920 film starring Douglas Fairbanks), the story and characters seen in those works are fair game. The court sided with him, and stated that Sony cannot copyright Zorro because it's a public domain property that anyone has access too.

I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with the European Union. Zorro has always been a public property as long as I can remember. I've seen cartoons, films, tv shows, and stage plays based on it long before Sony started making their Zorro films, so I don't understan

d what is so special about their take on the story that warrants a copyright and effectively removing other people's access to it.

Last but not least story I read is a rather ridiculous lawsuit filed by Lionsgate against Ameritrade for using their trademarked line from Dirty Dancing, "nobody puts baby in the corner." The Ameritrade add is a spoof of the famous final scene, showing a banker about to embrace a giant piggy bank, with a caption "Nobody puts your old 401(k) in the corner." Lionsgate claims that they have future plans for this "valuable property" and that Ameritrade is lying to customers by implying they're in partnership with Lionsgate. Now, Ameritrade have launched their own tirade against Lionsgate, essentially saying they're being harassed and their claims of copyright infringement are baseless and overreaching.

I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with Ameritrade. What they did was a parody, which is protected under the 1st Amendment and the Fair Use clause. Lionsgate has no case and it seems to me to just be an excuse to drum up some publicity for a tired old franchise. "Future plans for this valuable property?" Yeah, right!

Well, hope you guys enjoyed this post and tata for now!

~Evgueni Mlodik

In defense of Ike Perlmutter.

Marvel CEO Isaac "Ike" Perlmutter.

A lot has been said about Marvel CEO's Ike Perlmutter's alleged leaked email where he put down the concept of female superhero movies and, of course, the politically correct crowd grabbed their torches and pitchforks and went after him. But I have a question for these keyboard warriors, have they even read his email or even know the basic functions of the film industry?

Now, I do think people are making a bigger deal out of this "scandal" than it truly deserves because it comes on the heels of online community criticizing Marvel for not showcasing their female superhero franchises as much as they could've. Fans' outrage spanned from either casual annoyance or outright accusations of sexism.

The "Holy Trinity" of box office bombs. See a pattern?

But the problem isn't with Marvel or Ike Perlmutter. I think it goes deeper. In my opinion, it goes to directors, writers, and producers of superhero films who seem to think female audiences deserve less than their male counterparts and continuously churned out lesser quality material that in the end destroyed any potential female lead superhero movies lead.

Contrary to popular belief, Perlmutter didn't really say anything sexist or anti-women in his email. The email, addressed to a Sony Executive, simply pointed out how female superhero movies made in the past couple of decades horribly bombed at the box office, and he had a point. Perlmutter listed the notorious bombs Catwoman, Elektra, and Supergirl (and there are many more, like the nearly unwatchable Tank Girl and Red Sonja) and how much money they lost. The only thing more notorious than their box office intake, however, is their awfu quality. The films suffer from horrible writing, bad direction, abysmal acting, and worst of all, incomprehensibly bad writing. None of the female lead superhero movies mentioned by Ike Perlmutter were well received either by critics or the audience, in addition to their flopping at the box office. None of these movies count as "good" movies aside from (or lack there of) their profitability.

A big issue with female superhero films is that we cannot connect with the lead character due to inherently sexist nature of the writing. Why must female superheroes only fight "girly" things? Be it a cosmetic company (Catwoman) or a beauty spa (Elektra), the idiotic pretext begins to alienate the average viewer, as is their equally insipid alter ego person, like Supergirl's sexy uniform boarding schoolgirl. I feel that Perlmutter's email was taken cruelly out of context, because he was specifying WHY those films flopped and the mistakes he would like HIS female superhero movies to avoid because he does not want them to become another pop culture/box office casualty.

Maybe, instead of crucifying Marvel, Disney, Sony, and Ike Perlmutter and dismissing them as "sexist pigs" we need to encourage these people to put in more effort into female superhero movies. If the quality improves, so will the box office intake, but this "self-fullfiling prophecy" schtick of creating subpar movies they know no one will see has to stop now.

~Evgueni Mlodik

Jonathan Tiersten and the Art of Negotiating

JT and I at the 2015 Macabre Faire Film Festival.

I recently had the honor and privilege to interview a great friend of mine and industry veteran, Jonathan Tiersten. He is an actor and singer known for his role in the cult horror franchise Sleepaway Camp and is a staple here in Colorado on the indie music circuit. Jonathan has recently been expanding his film career as an actor and producer and was kind enough to answer several questions I had about negotiating within the entertainment industry.

How would you say deal making and negotiation is different in show business as opposed to other business dealings?

Well, firstly, I would say that it depends on the level of the project.  Indy projects can all types of deals from very casual to very much by the book.  The more money there is involved in a project, the more formal the negotiation tends to be.  One of the main changes I have seen is that in person auditions are becoming less frequent and people are hired on name recognition alone.

How do you separate the people from the problem when you are negotiating? What tips do you have for new negotiators who are trying to do this? 

It isn't easy.  I very recently had this experience. I think the key is to not take things personally.  Everybody is your friend until they have to write a check.  I think the more detailed you are before you even enter the process the better off you will be.  Preparation goes a long way.  Look for things that might be sticking points and figure out possible resolutions before you even start talking.

How do you handle positioning bargaining tactics?

That is something that, I think, can only come from repetition.  I think the most important thing you can have is your integrity.  That may sound easy on it's face.  I recently spoke with a CEO of  Fortune 100 company and he told me, "Everybody will take free shit, even if it hurts someone else".  I hope he is wrong, but I think it is important to have a good feel for the people you are working with.

Would you say there any dirty tricks a person aspiring to get into entertainment business should know?

I don't know that there are dirty tricks.  I would say that you have to take a leap of faith and be willing to fail.  Learning how to deal with failure is an enormous part of this business.  It never feels good but you have to learn how to use it constructively.  Flying off the handle and having a tantrum or going into a deep depression may seem like the thing to do at the time, but they don't get you anywhere.

What was the most challenging negotiation you've experienced? What was the outcome?

I had a different answer for this question up and until two days ago.  I have been working with a couple of producers in Hollywood who have a feature debuting at The Seattle International Film Festival.  We just met with the aforementioned CEO.  It took me several years to set up the meeting (not to mention build my own resume).  I spent a ridiculous amount of money to get to the meeting and equally as much on the dinner.  Anyway, the CEO went on a roughly three hour monologue about his amazing philanthropic exploits and spectacular business acumen until I finally interjected.  I could not believe the producers had remained silent.  They seemed to be very intimidated  They talked such a tough game when I had spoken with them previously.  At that point the CEO responded by saying, "Okay, tell me how much you need".  They low-balled it and quoted a number about 1/2 of what we had discussed.  He responded by offering less than a quarter of that because he said he does not want it to be his head on the chopping block.  Truth be known the amount of money we were discussing isn't a lot to him.  I am still reeling from the affects.  Answering this question, again, for you makes me want to take heed of my own advice.  I must learn from this.  Right now I cannot say what that lesson is.  I sent a very terse email to the CEO after the meeting and excused myself (permanently) from the negotiation.  He said he would continue to talk to them (the producers) independently which I made a condition of my exit.  I also called the producers and said I was out.  They said that if he indeed invested I was due a finder's fee.  I told them I don't want it.  The CEO also told me to send him the dinner bill so he could reimburse me.  I told him, "Not a chance".  In the end it may seem like I have nothing, but I am pretty sure my integrity is intact and at least they are still negotiating.  It made me realize that I am good at the negotiating part but not so good at the ethical compromise part.  Maybe in my next lifetime. 

To learn more about Jonathan Tiersten and his work, please visit his official site HERE.

~Evgueni Mlodik

Can E.L. James sue for plagiarism when she herself is a plagiarist?

Where (modestly budgeted) dreams are made...

Oh, the Asylum. I suppose a whole separate blogpost will be needed to cover "the little production comp

Subtle, eh?

any that could," but I will try to cover their history in a few brief sentences. The Asylum started out as an indie distribution company that eventually started producing their own low budget straight-to-video features, which gradually devolved into what is now known as a "mockbuster;" an ultra cheap shoddily made rip-off of an upcoming or recent big budget Hollywood film with a DVD artwork that suspiciously resembles the poster for some major theatrical release. While working the night shift at Hollywood Video during my college days, I had to restock such Asylum masterpieces asKing of the Lost World, Pirates of Treasure Island, When a Killer Calls, 18 Year Old Virgin, The Da Vinci Treasure, and last, but not least, The Transmorphers. I will leave you to come up with your own conclusions as to which mock buster represents which Hollywood film.

Sure, you may hate it, but the creators of this
flick are crying themselves all the way to the bank.

Well, it seems now that the Asylum has hit an all new low and churned out their most shameless rip-off yet. As we all know, Fifty Shades of Grey started life as an online fan-fiction of Twilight, re-imagining the Mormon propaganda vampire yarn as a sexually explicit personal fantasy of an S&M relationship as envisioned by a bored housewife, that is the author, E.L. James. So now that the unavoidable "film of the book" has been released and set record box office gross records, The Asylum has to jump on board with a rip-off, using a highly unimaginative and over-used title Bound, which ironically brings to mind another 90s steamy cult flick. As typical for productions from Asylum, he film stars such C-list icon as Charisma Carpenter and newcomer Bryce Draper, along with everyone's favorite "other" Baldwin brother, Daniel, in a pointless role as Charisma's father just shove in another name actor on the DVD cover. The film's plot follows 50 Shades blow by blow, with same basic characters going through the exact same journey, the only difference being the social status swap between the two leads. The similarities are too many too list, in fact, the plot synopsis would work well for either films; two socially different people enter a taboo S&M relationship as the male partner's behest and it serves to the female lead to eventually realize they're incompatible. Granted, it's a plot as old as Skinemax, and we already endured this melodramatic softcore porn in such Zalman King epics as 9 1/2 Weeks and the abysmal Wild Orchid, but I guess Bernardo Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris predates all of them.

So, the question arises. Why won't E.L. James sue The Asylum for plagiarism as so many other filmmakers have done and won? Well, that is because she is walking a thin line of plagiarism herself, seeing how her book originated as a very kinky Twilight fan fiction. One can even make a chart regarding which character from 50 Shades of Grey corresponds with which Twilight character.

It seems to me that E.L. James is afraid. She is afraid if she will take The Asylum to court, she will not only come off as hypocrite, but she's afraid of setting a precedent. If she sues the producers of Bound for ripping off her work, then why can't Stephenie Meyer sue James (real name Erica Mitchell) for stealing her work? It all seems like a hilarious case of karma, but realistically speaking, James has nothing to worry about, even if she and her agent are probably miffed at such being so shamelessly ripped off. It seems strange that The Asylum would make a title so radically different from the film they ripped off, but that could be due to The Hobbit and The Day the Earth Stood Still fiascos. Therefore, I can't really imagine anyone mistakenly picking up a copy of Bound, imagining it is Fifty Shades, which is The Asylum's entire business formula. Now, I guess Charisma Carpenter fans would be interested, as would fans of softcore porn films, but most of them loathe the E.L. James original, so they probably won't bother with a knock-off. Seems that both The Asylum and E.L. James screwed the pooch in their respective departments.

~Evgueni Mlodik

A Short Interview with Rutanya Alda

Me with Rutanya Alda at an event in Denver.

It is not every day one gets to meet their idol. I am one of the lucky few to have met one of mine, the cult actress Rutanya Alda, who’s beautiful face should be familiar to fans of 70s and 80s films. She played such diverse roles the young bride in the classic The Deer Hunter and Joan Crawford’s hapless personal assistant Carol Anne in the infamous Mommie Dearest. I had the good fortune to meet with Rutanya a number of times and each time it was a revelation. Her stories about the film industry and her days working with such veterans as Brian De Palma, Roman Polanski, and Faye Dunaway are a treasure trove of interesting trivia about Hollywood and how a struggling artist can strive to succeed in the industry. A while ago, I had the privilege to conduct a short interview with Rutanya. It is not terribly long, but her responses are amazing and thought

provoking.

How did you start out in the film industry?
I started out as an extra.  My first job was as a student in Up the DownStaircase with Sandy Dennis.  I did a lot of extra work and also photo doubled for Mia Farrow in Rosemary’s Baby, and photo doubled for Barbra Streisand and played a townsperson in Funny Girl, I also did stand in for Anne Francis in Hello, Dolly!

What were your biggest obstacles while establishing yourself?
The obstacles are that there are thousands of people up for the same parts and it is also hard to get seen by casting people if they don’t’  know your work.

What would you say is your biggest accomplishment in the industry? Why?
The major films I have done, including The Deer Hunter, which won an Oscar for best film and the cult classic Mommie Dearest and now Amityville II: The Possession, which is becoming a classic.  I love my early films by Brian de Palma; his unique and original filmmaking in the late 60s/early 70s Greetings and Hi, Mom!; working with wonderful actors  - it’s a collaborative effort. It feels good when one can be in an environment that is collaborative and an actor feels safe to try and be creative in the moment.

What advice would you give to young people fresh out of film school and trying to launch a career in the film industry today?
My advice is if you have a second choice, do it.  The film industry as an actor is really tough and you have to have no choice but to do it. It’s like a virus that you can’t shake. Its the burning desire to express and create.  I often tell people “don’t do it”  and if they take my advice then I think they have saved themselves a lot of pain. If they don’t take my advice, they have the virus and they must do it.  There are hundreds and maybe thousands of people up for one part.  The odds are like the lottery.  So many variables come into why one is cast.  And often the best people are not.  Your age, your color of hair, who you know; silly things that have nothing to do with your talent. Your sanity is often questioned.  Having said all of this, if one must one must.  I certainly had to.  I also think the industry has changed so much.  If one can do one’s own projects, write, film and get it out there -- Being in charge of your own destiny, so to speak, as much as possible, and create, create, create on your own as much as possible so you don’t put your future in someone else’s hands all the time.  I also recommend studying all the time. Keep getting better. Study with good people.  I am still in class 40 years later.  I continue to grow and get better and better as an actress and creative person.

~Evgueni Mlodik