Today's News: Indy crosses over to the Dark Side

Another newsflash I posted on MS the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152235/disney_verwerft_rechten_indiana_jones

No real surprise here, since we knew Disney had acquired the rights to all Lucasfilm properties when they took over the company. The exact nature of their influence was unknown until now though. It's interesting Disney made a deal that also works in Paramount's favor, instead of taking it all for itself. This probably has something to do with the fact that Disney won't actually be producing any new Indiana Jones films, but will merely stick to distributing and marketing. So that means Paramount will have to do the hard work which makes Disney all the big bucks, in which case the latter studio will have to cut the former some slack financially if they're to stay on equal terms.

But will this mean the production of Indiana Jones 5, which has been rumoured to be in development for five years now, will soon kick into full gear? Definitely. As we've noticed in the case of Star Wars, Lucasfilm's other major franchise, Disney proved all too eager to start exploiting it pronto. It seems we'll be getting no less than six(!) new Star Wars movies over the next decade, so I'm betting at least one Indy movie is a given and the studio will be announcing a release date soon, as they did with Star Wars Episode VII (as long as J.J. Abrams stays away from this project I'm cool with that!). But will Harrison Ford star as the titular archeologist again? In all honesty, I hope not. Though I agree he's the ultimate and original Indy, I've always envisioned the Indiana Jones persona to be similarly adaptable as, say, the James Bond character. People no doubt viewed the change in actor when Sean Connery quit the 007 role as sacrilege too at first, but some of the following Bond actors proved equally up to the task. Why would the same not be possible in the case of Indy? Do we really need to drag poor old Harrison into this every time? Credibility was already stretched in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in that regard. At the same time, I don't recall so many fans complaining about The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. To my mind, as long as the story, action and fun is well written and perfectly executed, Indiana Jones will survive the departure of Ford just fine. My only fear is that Shia LaBeouf will don the fedora and whip next, and that certainly is not a delightful prospect...

Today's Double News: studio decisions regarding superheroes and a teddy bear

Another double bill of news today, because I didn't post one item yesterday for lack of time, again (insert shamefaced emoticon):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151830/ted_2_in_gevaar_vanwege_rechtenconflict

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151866/mogelijke_titels_batman_vs_superman_gelekt

In both cases we get a fascinating glimpse of how a studio plans its strategy for much anticipated blockbuster movies it has high hopes for (and in both cases I daresay the audience does too, though in one case more deservedly so than in the other). So Universal doesn't own the rights to Ted 2, apparently. No surprise really if you look at the Ted credits (on IMDb for example) and see that 'Universal presents' it only, which strongly hints at this major merely distributing (and marketing) the film which by itself was produced by a smaller company. This sort of thing happens all the time in the studio system. Big studios these days are mostly engaged in distribution and promotion of other studios' films rather than paying for production themselves. Not to say that distribution and promotion doesn't carry a risk financially too, considering how much money is being spend in those two departments today. If a movie flops, everyone loses money. Ted certainly didn't flop though, not by a longshot! It was quite surprisingly a runaway hit, earning over ten times as much as it cost (or at least, as much as its production cost: who's to say how much money was involved creating audience awareness?). Ted 2 will likely fare about as well if not better. So even though a final deal has not yet been struck between Universal and MRC, I would venture a guess the current release date won't change at all and the production is not in any jeopardy, despite what my overly sensational headline seemed to indicate (hey, I need attention just like every other human being!). In fact, Universal may have been attempting to force the issue by stating a release date in advance, so MRC can't allow itelf to lose face by not living up to this deadline (kind of a mean tactic, but nothing studios haven't done before). And why wouldn't the smaller company want to live up to it, considering how much money Ted 2 is likely to earn it and Uni both? Like any Hollywood studio would ever say no to the prospect of more precious shiny money!

As for Supes and Bats, it was known Batman vs. Superman wasn't a definitive title, just a temporary one. A temporary one that caught on though, as both fans and movie websites across the globe have embraced it vigorously. Nevertheless, considering this film is a sequel to Man of Steel (which also serves as a new set-up for the Caped Crusader and a possible new sub-franchise of his own), it's logical studio Warner Bros. would want to take advantage of the new and popular Man of Steel brand name, as opposed to the maybe too classic Superman name, by emphasizing the connection between that film and this one via the title. Of course, this title must also allow for room for the Batman character (whatever his exact moniker this time around), but if you don't use the term 'Superman' (as Man of Steel tried so hard to avoid for over two hours), why would you use 'Batman'? So you come up with more subtle titles, like this cascade of concocted credits illustrates, after they'd been exposed by alleged "secret" domain name registering. Like there's any room for secrets on the Internet... I wouldn't be surprised if Warner allowed these names to leak on purpose just to continue fueling the movie's hype, a process which will not conclude right up till the actual release of the piece. I'm not particularly fond of any of these proposed titles, I must admit. There's just something catchy and iconic about the title of 'Batman vs. Superman'. It says it all, doesn't it? Or are we being deceived, and will this movie not feature the two of them battling it out at all? Is it possible there's more truth to these Justice League rumours that are flying around the web than we thought there was, and other tentpole DC characters, like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, will also be of major importance? So many questions, but for now all of them are still being outstaged by the biggest one of them all: Batffleck, yay or nay?