Says Wachtel, “We know the web series medium is not the most popular. But to date there has never been a serialized, online show about the entertainment industry created by the insiders themselves. We want this to be branded as a show made by Hollywood assistants, for Hollywood assistants. And because we want to direct in the future, this is a way we can hone our skills and stay busy. Anyone can make a short film – why not make many short films, and make them for a specific audience?”

The series is expected to satirize many fixtures in Hollywood – the producers are taking liberties with the humor and are apparently not concerned with how offensive the show may be at times. The first episode is said to feature a mockery of Michael Bay.

Wachtel and Copeland plan to release episode 1 entitled “The Voice” online October 2nd, which is the anniversary of the first ever airing of Rod Serling’s “The Twilight Zone” television series. The two see this as a fitting homage to a filmmaker who gave them inspiration for their own series. Wachtel sees serialized entertainment as an asset to companies like Funny or Die, College Humor, Break.com and even Deadline.com who rely so heavily on relevant content. His short term goal is to co-produce Season 2 of the series with said companies while pooling from their access to celebrity talent. Wachtel and Copeland are looking to involve as many entertainment professionals as possible in the process.

Follow the show on Twitter @The30MileZone or “Like” The Thirty Mile Zone on Facebook for news and updates.

Ed Helms in "The Hangover: Part II"

Everything about this new script is just plain lazy. A monkey was substituted in for a tiger. Gunshot wounds replaced tazer wounds. A tattoo on Stu’s face took the place of his previous dental deformity. Alan’s roofies were switched out with muscle relaxers and ADHD medication. Justin Bartha’s character was once again a plot device – why isn’t he allowed to have fun with the other guys? Oh that’s right, he’s not funny. The film itself wasn’t all that funny. Ok it was kind of funny. Sort of. So-so. Isn’t it frustrating how the film never lives up to the buzz? That being said, the film will likely creep towards $1 billion international grosses. So tell me, how long will this already franchise drag on? I’m guessing it’ll make it to seven films. The eighth will be straight-to-DVD.

Kevin Smith speaks about his film "Red State" at Sundance 2011.

In what distributors considered a self-aggrandizing, eulogistic rant, Smith snubbed buyers when he revealed at this year’s Sundance Film Festival that his new film Red State wasn’t even up for sale. He has instead decided to release the film on his own on the 17th anniversary of his 1994 Clerks release. Emphasizing a reactionary approach to indie filmmaking, Smith explained how he believed his film would generate more profit if distributed by himself and without the burden and price-tag of involving a studio.

“It’s not enough to just make the movie. We have to learn how to release the movie because true independence isn’t making a film and selling it to some jackass. True independence is schlepping that shit to the people yourself. And that’s what I intend to do.” At this point of Smith’s speech, most of the crowd welcomed his words with a lengthy applause while others (namely distributors) felt slighted and prematurely walked out.

Smith is convinced that if his film can successfully generate a profit without the middle-man distributor, that he will open the doors for the masses to bring their films to a theater near you without the requirement of having deep pockets. The question then becomes, is it appropriate or even wise for the designated entertainees to take part in the actual entertainment that is intended for themselves. This is a little bit of a Haily Mary for Smith, that will either leave him looking like a genius or a fool. We’ll check back later to see how his plan holds.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

CW: Can you tell me what inspired you to make THE JONESES?

DB: Well, I first started writing it about eight years ago.  One night I was in bed with my wife and we were watching a show about self-marketing that showed an alcohol company which hired models to go out to bars and order repeatedly the same drink. Immediately I had an “Aha” moment and decided to take this to the next level. I thought that using the concept of self-marketing as a backdrop would be the best way to handle it. I was fascinated with reality shows and the forced intimacy of people living together while the cameras are rolling. So I thought it would be interesting to use this as a hook set up against the backdrop of a stealth marketing program.

CW: So let me get this straight. You wrote, directed and produced the film.  Obviously you were pretty involved with the project. What was that like?

DB: I think that wearing all these hats or spinning all these plates…it was difficult. For the most part it was beyond a full time job.

CW: THE JONESES is a one-of-a-kind film in its integration of product placement into the central story-line. Can you discuss from a Producer’s standpoint the way you approached using product placement for this particular film?

DB: Every product placement decision was made on a creative level rather than a business level. I knew that if we ended up faking every product that it would take the film into a more farcical realm. It would become overly stylized. I wanted naturalistic realism—a disarming quality. I knew we had to have real products because if we had fake brands it would’ve made the film something that I didn’t want to make. It had to be for the kind of film I wanted to make.

CW: Can you talk a little bit about the chemistry between David Duchovny and Demi Moore on set and how they approached their roles?

DB: Both of them really got it from the first time I met with each of them which impressed me the most. They both brought a lot to the table and had their own ideas. This allowed for a great spirit of collaboration. They both came to work with great ideas, ready to work, passionate about the material and their roles. And of course as many will see once the film hits theaters, Demi and David have an undeniable chemistry.

CW: After you finished writing THE JONESES, how did you end up teaming up with Echo Lake Entertainment?

DB: What I really liked about Echo Lake (Tsotsi, Away From Her) was that Doug Mankoff and I really were partners, along with Producer Kristi Zea, on this from the get-go. We all were very passionate about the script and knew that we could make something great. I’m very happy that I got to make this film with Echo Lake and I think we made a really great film together. [Echo Lake] has such a tremendous track record in developing and producing quality films so I knew I’d be in good hands.

CW: You have lots of experience with commercials and are just starting to refocus your career as an emerging filmmaker. Considering the fact that this was your directorial  debut for a feature film, did you have butterflies on set?

DB: The anticipation during pre-production was a little stressful, but once we actually got into production it was a regular day of work for me. I think I’ve spent more days on set directing commercials than  people who’ve done two to three features. The amazing talent of the actors was also an enormous help!

CW: I understand that your next film THE ZERO is in development. Can you tell me a little bit about what kind of movie audiences can expect?

DB: That’s correct. The Zero which we are basing off of the popular book [from author Jess Walter] will be adapted by by Brandon Boyce (Apt Pupil and Wicker Park). It’s kind of a dark political satire: think Memento meets Being There meets 12 Monkeys and Fight Club. Part psychological thriller and part satire.  It’s easier for  me to use reference films to describe it. The material itself is darker but also asks a lot of questions and illuminates things within our bureaucracy.

CW: If someone walked up to you on the street and asked you why they should go to the theater to see THE JONESES on April 16th, what would you say to them?

DB: I would recommend it to anyone who is looking for a film that is an entertaining ride with great laughs, as well as personal stories set against a backdrop of serious social issues. Once the ride is over, I think the effect will sit with people, leaving them with something to talk about and discuss.

For more information on Derrick Borte and the upcoming release of THE JONESES please visit their website here.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

The cast of Derrick Borte's "The Joneses" (2010).

The film’s international premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September has already generated a ton of buzz. I will resist the temptation of giving away too much of the plot in order to keep your viewing experience as pure as possible (click here for a sneak peek).

But I will say that the story-line for The Joneses offers a refreshing twist to the romantic comedy genre.  With Demi Moore and David Duchovny as the leads (and NOT Sarah Jessica Parker or Hugh Grant), the romantic chemistry is always fun and exciting. Moore and Duchovny are complemented by an all-star supporting cast in Gary Cole, Amber Heard, Lauren Hutton, Glenne Headly, and Ben Hollingsworth.

The Joneses should serve as a worthy springboard for discussion on the current American economic crisis, albeit in a mostly lighthearted fashion. Above all else, The Joneses is timely in its treatment of the American phenomenon of people who abide by the “keeping up with the Joneses” philosophy to constantly advance their materialistic needs.

As Americans battle through recession and even unemployment, The Joneses allows us to step back and see from a bird’s-eye-view our own superficial lives which we fight so hard to maintain. It also highlights the abilities of two veteran actors in full form who actually have tremendous on-screen romantic chemistry. I’m anticipating The Joneses to be one of the most original films of 2010. The film is due to hit theaters on April 16th.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

In a Nutshell…

After emerging as the victor of the VHS/Betamax format war of the mid-70’s, VHS tapes revolutionized the entertainment industry from top to bottom. A myriad of newly resurrected films could now be easily accessed, viewed at leisure, and most importantly, preserved. Surviving the debuts of various other formats, including the infamous Laserdisc bomb of the 80’s, VHS dominated home entertainment until the DVD was introduced in the 90’s. If VHS was the reefer of home entertainment, then DVD was the crack-cocaine. It revolutionized movie watching even further, offering better clarity, sound and video options like subtitles and language tracks, and a variety of other goodies such as trailers, behind-the-scenes featurettes, and audio commentary tracks. In the past couple of years we’ve witnessed the advent of a new generation: Blu-ray (the victor of yet another format war, beating out HD DVDs in early 2008), which currently stands as the capstone of home entertainment.

Anyone with a 72-inch 1080p television with a surround sound system and Blu-ray player will tell you that when it comes home entertainment, there really isn’t much more that needs to be improved. But technology doesn’t just stand still. The next bigger-and-better thing eventually comes around (digital downloads may already be making discs obsolete).

So where do we go from here?

Phase One: 3-D

The logical next step for home entertainment is in fact currently being developed by media companies. Although 3-D film technology was adapted even before its initial boom in the 1950’s, its popularity has since ebbed and flowed, never really gaining a firm grip with the moviegoing public. But with the evolution of CGI at last approaching its pinnacle (or so it seems, at least), and confirmed by the unprecedented success of James Cameron’s 3-D Avatar, it certainly appears that this time around, the technology is here to stay. Time to Consummation: 3-5 years.

In John Carpenter's "They Live," Roddy Piper is able to see subliminal messages created by an alien-run government whenever he puts on special sunglasses.

Phase Two: Choose-Your-Own-Adventure

You know those books where you get to choose what the characters do at the end of the page? Imagine that concept applied to films. You’re watching Saw 23. Jigsaw’s latest captive is hobbling through a labyrinthine warehouse armed with a meat cleaver and comes upon a bleeding man – a known antagonist – chained to a water heater about to burst and crying out for help, when suddenly the screen freezes and a menu pops up with three choices: 1) try to free the man, 2) get out of there and let him boil, 3) hack him to bloody pulp with the meat cleaver. This would be a nightmare for filmmakers, who would have to shoot several times more footage than usual, and cinema purists might complain that it compromises the integrity of storytelling. But this new media form allows for a lot of fun new possibilities. The concept could be expanded to create video game/movie hybrids (many video games already feature extensive cinematic sequences, and a few, such as Enter the Matrix, even incorporate live-action scenes shot specifically for the game). Small indications of this technology have already surfaced on DVDs, with multi-angle features, alternate endings, etc. Time to Consummation: 15-20 years.

Phase Three: 4-D… and Beyond

Where do you go from 3-D? Really, how much more do we need to be immersed in the world of a film? Well, you know, people have other senses besides vision and hearing. Imagine… When the Tyrannosaurus Rex first approaches the idle vehicles in Jurassic Park, the ground literally shakes. When the Doomsday device is activated at the end of Dr. Strangelove, a wave of heat washes over your body. When the cowboys around the campfire toot bean-music out of their asses in Blazing Saddles… well, you get the idea. Some theme parks already have theater-style attractions with little quirks like these. Jerking seats when there is a tumult, a spray of mist when someone sneezes… Retrofitting theaters for this kind of mass sensory-immersion would be daunting, but feasible. And the creative possibilities are virtually endless. However, applying this kind of technology to consumer home theater systems is, at this point, rather outlandish. The most likely result if this ever comes to fruition would be a customized La-Z-Boy recliner that wirelessly syncs to your TV/media player and perform various sensory functions on cue, based on whatever film you may be watching. Don’t look for this to be available any time soon. Time to Consummation: 30-35 years.

Phase Four: Full Immersion

At this point, we’re pretty much in the Matrix. Virtual reality to the nth degree. There is little noticeable difference between the real world and the entertainment world. Life doesn’t imitate art or vice-versa because they are literally one and the same. Time to Consummation: 100+ years.

This is just some food for thought. Please post any other ideas of what you think the future of home entertainment might have in store.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.

There is something to be said about a film’s “watchability factor,” where such films rank in our our collective consciousness, and what gives films that special Oscar quality.

The small number of people who went to the theaters to see Precious were likely preparing themselves for emotional and intellectual suicide. That’s just what they got. After all, Precious is a brave film with brave performances, seen by people brave enough to sit through it all. Such movie-going experiences are difficult, sad and heart-wrenching. Albeit essential.

Mo'Nique in Lee Daniels' "Precious."

Interestingly enough, many Academy members have been missing screenings for Precious and putting off watching their watermarked copies of the film even though it remains a legitimate Oscar contender.

Similar films which have gained notoriety for their depression-inducing effects are Schindler’s List (1993),  Platoon (1987), United 93 (2006),The Elephant Man (1980) and most recently The Wrestler (2008) among countless others. Even many who cherish these films can bare to watch it only once in their lifetime.

Feel-good flicks and childhood favorites (see article on “cover movies“) we normally watch at least once a year. And yet some of the most disciplined movie-goers will dismiss these films as “low-brow” and non-essential. Then again there’s the argument that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

Measuring the Chances of Oscar Contenders

As we countdown to the Oscars and place bets on our favorite contenders, let’s consider both sides of this spectrum and discuss the merits and flaws of some contenders. I will go out on the offensive right now and proclaim that unless a film which rests on either extreme end of the spectrum (”Cover Movies” vs. “Suicide Flicks”) is incredible and indisputably groundbreaking, it does not deserve to win Best Picture–at least this year. 2009 is a defining year for this decade because we will soon be transitioning into a new decade.

Hard films to watch versus easy films to watch. Yet the ones which fall in between are often the most beloved. These are the films that strike a great balance between art and entertainment.

Suicide Flicks of the year include Precious, Brothers, and The Hurt Locker to name just a few. On the opposite side of the spectrum are easy-viewing flicks such as The Blind Side and Invictus. Last year, the film that won Best Picture was Slumdog Millionaire. Like Forrest Gump, Slumdog satisfied both ends of the spectrum. These kinds of films are undefined and beyond classification.

So which films are in between the spectrum of feel-good and heart-wrenching?  Well, for starters, the films in between the spectrum are my favorites for Best Picture. Most of these films strike the perfect balance between strict art and straight entertainment. This is no easy feat.

That being said, I believe that 2009 is the year of the blockbuster. My top picks in predicting this year’s Best Picture are two films brought to us by masterful auteurs of the trade: they are Inglourious Basterds and Avatar. These films share a lot in common. Both are big-budget, box-office spoilers with brand-name visionaries at the helm. Cameron and Tarantino seem to have surprised many with their spectacular returns to glory. Each film takes a challenging, complex stance towards its subjects and its subject matter. Cameron and Tarantino are not traditionally the kind of filmmakers that concern themselves with dangerous politics. And yet it is impossible to see each of their films and not seriously consider the message purveyed by both films.

Tarantino single-handedly and boldly revised history in his movie. Forget about his political tensions (if even there were any). Tarantino was able to deliver a film (a commercial film at that) which portrayed the events of history in a fictional way–a way so powerful that the film itself transcends its own genre restrictions. While on the surface, Basterds is a revenge thriller and war picture, it is also a criticism of the history of the human thirst for blood. And just as Crash was able to depict people in positive and negative lights, Tarantino achieves a similar approach that becomes so ambiguous that we are no longer sure if it’s appropriate to root for the Jews in his movie!

Avatar which is more direct in its message challenges both preemptive war and retaliatory war while also firmly believing that war is an evil which inevitably affects both the attackers and defenders. Cameron’s magnum opus also touches on many of the issues plaguing the world today such as environmental preservation and the challenges of globalization.

But while I consider Avatar to be landmark I have a difficult time calling it great. It is one of the most derivative movies I have seen to date. Oddly enough, Cameron was somehow able to recycle various concepts and story-lines while also managing to tell an original story.  The high-quality of the CGI and special effects is also a testament to how far we have come and how capable we have grown to tell stories. If you look at the short films that were being made in the late nineteenth century or even at the quality of early 20th century nickelodeons, I don’t believe anyone could have guessed we would come this far to advance the medium. Will it “change the way movies are made?” No, I don’t see how. But give James Cameron credit for creating an entire world from scratch. A world rich with lots of detail and an uncompromising imagination that is reminiscent of Star Wars and The Matrix.

So I expect either Basterds or Avatar to snag Best Picture (although quite honestly I believe Inglourious Basterds rolls over the competition). These two films in many ways are the anti-anti-war films of the 1970s and 1980s as their messages are sometimes more subliminal and their films more challenging. Instead of representing propaganda, they serve a better cause of stimulating discussion and debate.  Their philosophy: war is complex because there is always something worth fighting for.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

COURAGE, it reads in big block letters. Just as big as the title and even more prominent because it’s in stark red. But when you look into those eyes, those big dreamy eyes, what feeling is emoted?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

cour·age (\?k?r-ij, ?k?-rij\)   noun

mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty

Yeah, nice try but I don’t think so. Jake Gyllenhaal’s blank face expresses not even the slightest hint of courageousness, which makes this poster for Disney’s upcoming epic action adventure film video game movie very peculiar indeed. Words they might have tried instead: BOREDOM, FATIGUE, LETHARGY. He looks like he was just woken up from a nap in his double-banger, was dragged a couple of feet outside, and was told just to look into the camera.

As if that weren’t enough, the font is sans-serif, a typeface usually associated with modernity. As the film takes place in ancient times, this choice is horribly misguided and just plain sloppy. How much do you think the poster artist got paid for the five minutes of Photoshop that this took to complete? It would be comforting to think that this was merely a rough draft that a marketing exec stumbled upon and mistook for the final product, but unfortunately that’s not the case. It’s pathetic, really.

What’s even more pathetic is the fact that that Disney knows this movie isn’t going to be that good. It’s based on a video game, after all, and everyone knows that video games don’t have the best track record when it comes to translating to film. They know it’s going to be a flashy, effects-driven popcorn tentpole with wooden characters and sprinkled with the occasional quasi-emotional scene that tries to emulate real drama but can’t quite find the right beats, kind of like watching a cat trying to climb a brick wall. It’s Pirates of the Caribbean in the desert. Sparkling fodder for the masses. And if you think I’m being crass, consider this: it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

The audience knows it too. They have to. There’s no way that anyone of sound mind can watch the trailer and proclaim that this will be the next Braveheart. Deep down, they know exactly what kind of movie they’re paying to see. So what does Disney do? Market to the lowest common denominator, of course. Their sure things. This poster isn’t trying to persuade the cultured crowd. It’s for tween girls with crushes. Its counterpart, Gemma Arterton’s poster with the word DESTINY on the top, does the same thing. It sells the star, not the film.

But like clockwork, Prince of Persia is going to rake in millions, there will be at least two sequels, each more shallow and utilizing heavier special effects than the one before it, and so on and so forth. There’s really nothing to do but sit back and watch it happen.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.

Tyler Perry in "Madea Goes to Jail." The time is ripe for Hollywood to start taking more chances with talented black filmmakers to compete with Tyler Perry.

Without further ado, here are some major trendbusters that have either gone against the expectations of studio heads in recent months or introduced the potential for a new trend.

Paranormal Activity vs. The Saw Franchise

Does horror have a new name? Oren Peli’s achievement is already spawning a sequel in the works and posing a threat to the long-time monopolizing Saw franchise which, if not for next year’s 3-D selling point, probably would never have made it to Saw VII.

What Can We Learn From Michael Jackson’s This is It?

What can Tinseltown learn from the success of a Michael Jackson music documentary which has already generated roughly $200 million worldwide? Well, not much. That is unless there are any plans to conjure up a series of post-mortum specs for Patrick Swayze and Farrah Fawcett. Wouldn’t shock me. Look for someone to make the first move on taking a stab at more of these kinds of documentaries in the future.

Cirque du What? Down with the Vampire Movies!

So much for the vampire craze being an automatic for hefty returns (and thank God).  Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant royally tanked, leaving an  indelible stain on John C. Reilly’s career. With the exception of the inevitable success of Summit Entertainment’s The Twilight Saga: New Moon, it looks like studios will be hard-pressed to find the next best blood-sucking story.

Funny or Die

Judd Apatow is mortal after all. With Funny People, he has officially crossed the line of “bankability” and must now return to his back-to-basics approach of making funny movies.  Judd was able to get away with injecting in heavy doses of drama in his comedies. But he may want to start introducing newer actors into the mix as Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill are way overexposed.

So Precious

Much to the surprise of the trend-setting suits, there is indeed a market for straight-dramas, after all! While Precious has yet to fully realize its box office potential, its word-of-mouth buzz has given it a worthy head start. What studio heads should also be paying attention to is how well movies geared towards African-Americans are fairing this year in general.  Disney is finally giving us its first black  princess in history with The Princess and the Frog. I’d say this is long overdue. Hollywood needs to get stories from more black filmmakers.

Ghost Stories for the Anti-Gory

Not only did we witness the presence of supernatural horror films like Paranormal Activity and The Fourth Kind eat into the horror pie, we can expect more of these invisible villains to threaten the box office in the near future. Martin Scorsese’s mental hospital horror, Shutter Island, which has been pushed back to early 2010, has already generated a lot of buzz. And none other than the master of horror himself, John Carpenter makes a much-anticipated comeback with his bone-chilling mental hospital supernatural horror called The Ward. Seems like the times-are-a-changing for torture-porn lovers.

Revisionist History is In (Sort Of)

Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds created an “historic” precedent for Hollywood (and a potentially dangerous one, at that) as he proved that he could alter the course of history in the re-telling of the downfall of The Third Reich.  Michael Mann’s Public Enemies made John Dillinger into a sympathetic good-guy and reaped worldwide box office spoils (though let’s give Johnny Depp and Christian Bale credit for having sold this God-awful attempt at a movie). Amelia failed to excite….but then again, it wasn’t quite revisionist-history. Steven Spielberg is already generating excitement for his upcoming projects, Lincoln and a yet-to-be-named Martin Luther King Jr. picture.

————————————————————————————————————————

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.