New "Devil and Daniel Webster" Not to Be

[Cullen]

Fangoria.com (as well as some other fine Web Rumor Mills) reports that the new The Devil and Daniel Webster movie, staring Anthony Hopkins, Alec Baldwin, and Jennifer Love Hewitt, will never be done.  Read about it here .

Now, I could be snide here, real easy.  Hewitt, as far as I know, hasn't done anything worth being allowed to share a screen with Hopkins (Neither had Keanu Reeves, for that matter, but that's a different rant.)  I should be perhaps grateful that there isn't another Bad Movies out there waiting to claim another fool (i.e. me.)

However, there is another point here that bothers me.  This sentence: "He (Hopkins) goes on to say that Baldwin (who was making his directorial debut) had abandoned the movie and that Hopkins doesn't 'know if Alec is even interested in completing it.'"

Maybe it's me.

Maybe I read too much into things.

Maybe I'm WAY OFF BASE.

But I think I'd be fighting for my film.  Hard.  Especially if it was my first film.  Especially if, as the article states, the principle shooting had be finished.

Maybe Baldwin is.  Maybe he already has, and met with complete failure.  He isn't represented here, so I can't make a full judgement.

But if he isn't, and if he hadn't, then I'm not sure I want to see any movie he directs  He wouldn't be in it for the Art.  He'd be in it for the Money, for the "Prestige" of being a director.  And I'm not sure such a director can produce films that I'd like.

Or, at least, any GOOD movies.

Meanwhile, in another place and time, director Terry Gilliam, of Monty Python's Flying Circus and Brazil fame (he of the depressing happy endings), suffered a major catastrophe in trying to film his The Man Who Killed Don Quixote .  Sick actor, Acts of God (tm), investors pulling the plug, that sort of thing.
He only has a week's worth of film in the can.

Does he give up?

Hell no.  Last I heard, he was trying to buy back his script.  Might even try again.

Now, who's the REAL director?
_____________________________________________________________________
Information comes quick and fast in this day and age, and I'll bet I'll stumble over something that states that Baldwin went that extra mile to save his film.  If for no other reason than to prove my abusive statements here wrong.

But, as a cynic, I don't think I'll hold my breath while waiting to come across them.
====================================================================

[Foywonder]

And all those rumors of her having an affair with Baldwin while making the movie...all for nothing!

[Cullen]

I thought she was playing a devil, not Tom Green.

[Lee]

LOL!!!


Hey Cullen, I see your point about a director fighting for his movie. Terry Gilliam was a good example. I'll give you a few more: Rob Zombie-look at the crap he's gone through for House Of A thousand Corpses! Giving up is not an option for him, he's put too much time in this. Jackie Chan-When in the middle of filming Miracles the intire set was leveled by a monsoon! Production was shut down while the set was rebuilt(and putting a big increase on the budget)but he finished the movie(a good movie to). And there was a whole list of problems on the set of Armour of God 2(one invovled a crew member getting arrested for counterfiting), but that movie was finished and released. But who knows, maybe Alec decided it was time to just cut his loses and go on. Me, I'd be camping out on the doorstep of these guys holding up my movie but, like I said that's me, I'm sure Alec does have his reasons.

[Cullen]

Lee writes:

"I'm sure Alec does have his reasons."

I'm sure he does, too.  But the way that article sounded...I don't think he takes directing seriously.  

I could easily be wrong.  I just don't think I am.

[Mofo Rising]

Cullen wrote:
>
> Now, I could be snide here, real easy.  Hewitt, as far as I
> know, hasn't done anything worth being allowed to share a
> screen with Hopkins (Neither had Keanu Reeves, for that
> matter, but that's a different rant.)


I would get rid of the idea that an actor has to somehow "earn" screentime with Anthony Hopkins.  Hopkins has proved time and time again that he will show up in any movie where they pay him enough money, and I've seen him phone in bad performances with the worst of them.

[Cullen]

Mofo Rising Wrote:

"I would get rid of the idea that an actor has to somehow 'earn' screentime with Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins has proved time and time again that he will show up in any movie where they pay him enough money, and I've seen him phone in bad performances with the worst of them."

This is sadly true.  However, a good Hopkins is worth more than a good Hewitt, acting wise.  And Michael Caine can beat both of them hands down.

All silliness (sort of) aside, you are absolutely right.  The idea of "earning" the right to appear with anyone is silly.  Don't now why I even wrote...

Oh yeah.  Faulty brain.  Heh heh.

I'm such a dumb ass.

Now, what was your opinion on the other (and significantly larger) part of my post?

[Mofo Rising]

Cullen wrote:
>
> Now, what was your opinion on the other (and
> significantly larger) part of my post?
>

I don't really have one.  Just not enough information for me to feel like anything I say could be really constructive.

Could be a difference in styles.  Gilliam is an auteur director.  He pretty much makes most of his movies from conception to final product.  While he does work from other people's scripts and stories, a Gilliam film is always very much a Gilliam product.  With that much of his own person invested in a film, of course he's going to fight for it.

A remake of THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER, on the other hand, smacks of major studio line production.  Entertaiment, as opposed to art.  It would be much less of a personal investment for Baldwin.

It does seem odd that the producers would pull money if the filming is already finished.  If anything, I think they should be pressuring Baldwin to finish the film, as something like that is certainly liable to make its money back in a theatrical release and the rental market.  Even if the quality isn't that great.  My sole (Not soul.  That's a TD&DW joke.) interest in seeing the film is seeing Hewitt in skimpy outfits.  I'm not alone in that, look at HEARTBREAKERS.  That movie probably made its money back.

Back to Gilliam for a second.  Interesting money making strategy, to have the documentary workers on his film release a short film as a plea to get it made.  Got to hand it to that guy, always an inventive idea for getting his movie finished the way he wants it.  Now if he could just get to work on that GOOD OMENS film. . .

[Cullen]

(Trying a new "cut-and- paste" style here.  Mofo Rising's stuff is in italics, Mine isn't)

On my earlier question: Now, what was your opinion on the other (and significantly larger) part of my post?

I don't really have one. Just not enough information for me to feel like anything I say could be really constructive.

Like I said in the first post, there's probably more to the story than has been presented.  I probably should have kept the ranting for a more deserving topic.

I've been thinking about it, and I think that, in some recess of my mind, I've been wanting to see the film, and that everything I've written after has been a little tantrum over how I can't see the film.

I'm such a cry baby.  And over a Baldwin flick.  How sad is that?

Could be a difference in styles. Gilliam is an auteur director. He pretty much makes most of his movies from conception to final product. While he does work from other people's scripts and stories, a Gilliam film is always very much a Gilliam product. With that much of his own person invested in a film, of course he's going to fight for it.

A remake of THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER, on the other hand, smacks of major studio line production.  Entertaiment, as opposed to art. It would be much less of a personal investment for Baldwin.

All of that is a valid point, one I hadn't considered.  I don't think I could walk away;  after spending X months on the thing, being on the very edge of completing it, I'd be making some noise.  Big time.

On the flip side, I'm not an actor whose success record has been so great of late.  He might not WANT to make waves now.

It does seem odd that the producers would pull money if the filming is already finished. If anything, I think they should be pressuring Baldwin to finish the film, as something like that is certainly liable to make its money back in a theatrical release and the rental market. Even if the quality isn't that great.

Hears a thought: What if they have seen the movie, and that's why they've stopped it?  Maybe Baldwin's sitting there going "Thank God!  If that turkey ever go out..."

Or is that TOO cynical?

Anyhoo, thanks for the reply.  At the very least, you've made me put more thought into the matter.
=====================================================================

[Lee]

Cullen, I'm not saying you are wrong, you could be right. I was just stating what I picked up from the article.

[Lee]

Mofo Rising wrote:
>
> Cullen wrote:
> >
> > Now, I could be snide here, real easy.  Hewitt, as far as I
> > know, hasn't done anything worth being allowed to share a
> > screen with Hopkins (Neither had Keanu Reeves, for that
> > matter, but that's a different rant.)
>
>
> I would get rid of the idea that an actor has to somehow
> "earn" screentime with Anthony Hopkins.  Hopkins has proved
> time and time again that he will show up in any movie where
> they pay him enough money, and I've seen him phone in bad
> performances with the worst of them.

He's not only proved it he's even said it. I remember one article I read about him (forget which movie of his was coming out at the time) he said he's an actor for the money. Not that it's wrong to want to make money but that's a heck of an attitude.

[Cullen]

"Cullen, I'm not saying you are wrong, you could be right. I was just stating what I picked up from the article."

Sorry about that Lee.  Didn't mean to sound arguementative on this.

[Lee]

Hey man, missunderstandings happen. Atleast we cleared it up instead of b***hin back  and forth.

[Fearless Freep]

This is sadly true. However, a good Hopkins is worth more than a good Hewitt, acting wise. And Michael Caine can beat both of them hands down.

You mean in the category of a good actor  willing  to appear in a bad movie for a paycheck? :)   The evidence at hand is "Jaws: The Revenge"

[Cullen]

Y' know, Jaws:the Revenge was what I was thinking about when I mentioned Michael Caine...

I like Caine - I think he's a neat actor.  But he's been in some crap, hasn't he?