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.

Now for the highest hurdle. (Between you and me), I’m not so sure Congress is enthusiastic enough about film futures to embrace them for the long haul. Nobody wants another Bernie Madoff on their hands. And I bet film futures isn’t “top of the list” for these guys. Take a gander at the shady insider mess going down at Disney and you’ll see just how problematic this whole film futures idea may be. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the  F.B.I. intercepted an attempt of an assistant to Disney’s head of  corporate communications, who tried to transmit Disney’s early quarterly reports in return for cash.  Shortly thereafter, unreliable reports blitzed the internet that Disney had plans to sell ABC.

This is before the Film Futures Era. Just think of the potential magnitude of corruption and fraud this new kind of business can breed after the fact.

Film futures could very well turn the Tinseltown tradition into a trigger-happy, every-man-for-himself proverbial war-zone. Think about all of the possibilities for corruption that exist. It takes hundreds of people (more often than not) to put together a theatrically-distributed film. These people all have a stake in the process and are therefore all empowered to contribute to the success of a film. That being said, these people may as well be termed Hollywood day traders–their work and involvement in the film will largely determine whether the American public sees their film, which in turn determines how much money the American public will profit.  So think about the possibilities here, folks.  For all we know theatrical exhibitors can become the NBA-equivalent of referees, being paid off to allow or bar certain films from being shown in their theaters.

With these ideas considered, it is still impossible to physically make someone pay for a movie ticket. Though I doubt there isn’t someone out there already figuring out a way to conquer this.

Film futures has its merits. By directly involving the American movie-going audience into the process, the industry itself is bound to garner a lot of interest and attention, potentially resulting in another golden revival for Hollywood. The audience with the highest cinematic IQ can now apply a financial perspective to the business (again, for better or for worse). But admittedly, there’s no country better prepared and more experienced in movie-watching to take on this kind of challenge.

Stay tuned for more commentary on film futures. I’m not quite sure how this will all go down, but I guarantee there will be drama.

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

The other day, an editorial plea was made on behalf of the owners of a self-proclaimed “inspirational” and “distraction-free” working environment for screenwriters called “theOffice” concerning the company’s struggle to pay rent and stay afloat financially. If you’ve never actually heard of the Santa Monica-based company, your initial reaction to this news might be one of genuine sympathy for the owner. And Lord knows it can be hard for writers to find that perfect place for inspirational writing.

But when you learn how much the owner is charging people to simply sit and write in the comfort of its zen-like environment then you’d be hard-pressed to find a better reason not to join this money-sucking machine. Members of this pretentious excuse for a business essentially pay good money to feel as if they are working in the peaceful equivalent to living inside of one of Mr. Miyagi’s bonzai trees. They are afforded the convenience of (dare I say!) wireless internet, dictionaries and thesauruses (GREAT SCOTT!), comfortable couches and even parking! But at what price, you ask?

A glimpse into theOffice, a working environment in Santa Monica designed to meet the inspirational needs of screenwriters.

I’ve been told by the owner himself that membership rates range from $189-$409 per month. This means that at most some members (if there are still any) are paying nearly $5,000 per year for a workspace that gives them nothing more than what they can get at a local Starbucks!

Some Hollywood writers can’t even afford to dish out that much money a year on rent. Now how can this even be taken seriously? Is it any wonder that this is a failing business? Sure theOffice has “alumnis” like J.J. Abrams and Paul Haggis who used to write in their facility. Writers who I’m sure could afford the experience.

Now I gotta say that the philosophy behind theOffice is very reasonable. It’s extremely difficult for many writers to try and get their work done at home. That being said, if the owner wants to capitalize on running this facility as a business then he should be smarter about membership fees. You can’t simply just expect starving artists to flock to your facility when there are dozens of other options for peaceful working environments in Los Angeles. Writers do after all already write their way out of infinite sticky situations. Additionally, if theOffice seeks to stay somewhat relevant, it should actually offer its members competitive incentives to maintain their membership to offer an experience that can never be duplicated by a coffee shop. 24-karat writing pads of gold? That just might do it for your members considering the amount of money their paying.

Otherwise, quit whining about your rent for chrissakes. Your target market isn’t six-figure salary executives. It’s no-figure, no-salary, no-steady-paycheck, no-nonsense writers who can easily eliminate the expense of overpaying for WiFi and space.

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

Audio Commentary for "The Matrix."

As a young aspiring writer and filmmaker, audio commentaries provided me an unprecedented, yet conversational look into filmmaking. I was enthralled by the scholarly discourse and entertained by the production minutiae. It was like a little bit of film school attached to the end of my favorite film. It made me feel like an insider. For others audio commentary provides sheer entertainment, an expected feature of modern home video. And others still, find it as an uninteresting feature that remains relegated to the niche backgrounds of cinephiles.

Long gone from today’s commentaries is the scholarly discourse. Instead, the commentary has been replaced by insipid anecdotes and the filmmaker’s inside jokes. It seems audiences are more interested in the strict entertainment aspects of commentary, such as on EuroTrip where the director plays a drinking game. Indeed it has become masturbatory rather than informational.

So, what happened to the thoughtful and deliberate audio commentary? When did the landscape change from deconstruction and intellectualization of filmmaking to a sheer and meaningless entertainment romp?

I asked a close friend of mine, a television writer, what she thought of the state of audio commentaries for film and television. She said plainly, she’s never watched or listened to a single one because she simply didn’t care. I was surprised! I had assumed, like me, most of my peers would enjoy, dare I say, revel in the special features and audio commentaries especially with movies that are repeat viewing favorites. Why wouldn’t they want to know everything there is to know about how their favorite movie was made?

Another friend, a special effects artist feels ambivalent, “[the commentaries] always act like everything is a big happy family during production. I was just watching a dvd commentary on a movie I worked on. We [the effects team] made their movie look great. But the production was a nightmare, I wasn’t fully paid.” For him, commentary simply reminds him of the injustices of the industry.

Audio Commentary for "Donnie Darko."

Maybe there is very little usefulness of audio commentary for filmmakers. But that only makes up for a small portion of the movie-consuming public. Even today, despite its ubiquity, the value of having commentary on a film is difficult to measure. If you are an unknown, with only unsold or self produced projects there will be little interest in hearing you yap about how your uncle let you use his roller rink for the dance scene.

When an interviewer asked Woody Allen if he would like “definitive statements” on each of his films by way of commentary, Allen simply responded “No, I’m really not interested. I want my films to speak for themselves.”  For him, what is important is the film’s content. Is it a good film in its own merit?

When I listened to the Director’s Cut DVD of Donnie Darko, I was disappointed when I discovered Kevin Smith, (whom was not involved in film) “stopped by” to talk on the commentary. I was far more interested in what Richard Kelly had to say about his vision and the new cut than Kevin Smith’s occasional dick joke and ramblings. It took me out of the experience; it was no longer a filmmaker and his film. I was no longer a fly on the wall, but an annoyed third wheel listening to two dudes who might as well have been chatting over a beer.

For those of you who love commentary and still feel like it has merit, there are sites that have emerged to help the film consumer navigate. Most notably is the user supported website RateThatCommentary.com. A quick look at the site and you may notice attitudes are changing. Interest in commentary that is more like an Inside the Actor’s Studio affair than a traditional audio commentary is on the rise. Indeed, one entry about the Donnie Darko audio commentary says: “I’m beginning to enjoy more commentaries where someone from outside the production of the film can sit in with the filmmaker.”

Despite this, I still love the audio commentaries and find their content mostly worthwhile. While I may get frustrated by their inelegance, or their pointless banter, it is still an inside ticket into a film. I feel more connected to it, knowing the small details that happened on set or the “happy accidents” that helped create my favorite scene. And for me, that’s what it’s all about.

Merrel Davis is a screenwriter and freelance writer for The Film Crusade.

We’re all guilty. You, me, your next-door-neighbors and even their overseas relatives. Piracy is something we’ve all dealt with one way or another, for better or for worse. Probably the very first time you borrowed a copy of There’s Something About Mary just so you could burn a personal copy for yourself or likely when you first established loyalty with KaZaa or Limewire to indulge in long-term Peer-2-Peer music file-sharing did you come to terms with your own online ethical boundaries.

From burning a copy of their favorite DVDs to seeing a movie before it hits theaters, web pirates come in many forms. Most can pirate from the convenience of their own home.

For some of us, burning a copy of a DVD for a friend is considered ethically-sound so long as we purchased that DVD. These people can argue, “Well, it’s a product that I purchased. Therefore it’s mine and I can do as I please.” Others can contend that such practices deny potential royalties to the companies who own the rights to the DVD. Regardless of which side you’re on, there’s no denying that piracy allows certain people to save money and others to lose out on money they may rightfully deserve.

Recently, in an effort to impress studio execs and refocus their heralded anti-piracy campaign, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) decided to shake things up a bit and fire three executive forerunners of their anti-piracy program on grounds that they were simply too soft on piracy. In the matter of a single day, the MPAA refocused its mission from “anti-piracy” to “content protection.” Their pledge: Target individuals who download movies from Bit Torrents and sue their asses.

Now, I’d hate to joke about this situation, really. But indulge. The MPAA’s new marketing strategy likens to that of Wendy’s Restaurants who, one day out of the blue, arbitrarily decided that they weren’t a fast food company. “It’s way better than fast food. It’s Wendy’s!” Now you and I know that Wendy’s has no business marketing themselves as anything but fast food.

Listen, I am all for the MPAA slapping on a new badass sticker and spearheading a “my way or the highway” proverbial witch-hunt. But can they at least wear costumes, carry silencers, and stand under streetlights to project monstrous noir silhouettes on brick buildings? Or how about they recruit a motley crew of wiseguys and sharpshooters like Eliot Ness did in The Untouchables. Seriously. Because if the MPAA means business, they better damn well prove that they can walk-the-walk. And that means walking a tightrope.

The new look of the MPAA?

We’ve all heard about the notoriously hopeless efforts of the music industry in combating piracy. Though the cause may have been worthy, it hasn’t stopped any of us from downloading our favorite hits from the Billboard’s Top 100 songs chart.

And yet it doesn’t seem like there is another organization worthier than the American-bred MPAA to champion the preservation of creative rights. Preserving the creative rights of intellectual property is a noble and worthy cause. The MPAA has been defiantly pressing the international community to enact anti-piracy legislation for quite some time now. But such aggressive efforts may have unintended consequences; 1) Countries may get turned off by the MPAA’s whistle-blowing and resort to strict protectionism in their respective film industries, and, more alarming, 2) The content-protection campaign will set a bad precedent by greatly reducing internet freedom for millions of users.

France recently passed a “three-strikes” law that punishes those who share unauthorized music or movies over the internet. The penalty: one full year without web access. That’s right fellow Westerners, internet censorship is already upon us. Such draconian measures will undoubtedly breed more reforms aimed at censoring internet freedom.

A fascinating discovery was made by the British government in its anti-piracy studies. Web pirates in Britain who illegally download music are actually likely to spend more on music than anyone else. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) fears that targeting such individuals may result in additional losses totaling as much as 200m pounds! Certain artists like Shakira contend that pirating even allows them to become closer with their fans. Can the same be true for the film industry? And if so, would such findings impact the MPAA’s approach?

What the MPAA needs to do is address piracy with reason, calculation and tact. No one ever told Robin Hood that nothing good would ever come from stealing from the rich because the poor believed the wealthy were living at their expense. Similarly, consumers often feel like they are being cheated and overcharged at the theater for disappointing products.

But in this situation, it’s millions of people stealing from the rich (or mostly rich).  This era of internet users is most certainly a generation of thieves bred by a deregulated world-wide-web with limitless freedom. Such users show no signs of slowing down anytime soon. And while the trendy position may be to point the finger at the wealthy CEOs and studio-heads who sell shitty movies and benefit from overpriced Blu-Ray DVDs by labeling them as the real thieves, retaliatory pirates must too consider the price for their actions. After all, studio heads are not quite like the Bernie Madoffs and rich multi-national corporate CEOs when it comes to controlling the market. In fact, they don’t control the market for their industry. We do.

Studios aren’t as concerned about those of us who make a copy of a DVD every once in a while as much as they’re worried about the pirates who see their films before they are released in theaters. Because it is during this small interval of time where the theatrical movie as a product is of the greatest value. Once available on DVD, the hype is over and the film is likely to have already been sunk by critics.

Piracy can not realistically be eliminated and the MPAA must first accept this fact before resorting to extremist measures.  Remarking on alternatives for reducing piracy, Disney CEO Robert Iger remarked, “The best way to combat piracy is to bring content to market on a well-timed, well-priced basis.” This may be the most reasonable and realistic solution for studios. Once a movie comes out on DVD, it is so incredibly easy for it to become viral that the MPAA can’t possibly resolve this phase of the movie’s life-cycle without pissing off governments and censoring the internet.

The MPAA should heed the advice of Richard Dreyfuss from Frank Oz’ What About Bob? (1991) by taking “baby-steps.” If the MPAA expects to eliminate piracy, it must first focus on protecting a movie’s theatrical release. This may require targeting the source, the owners of torrents providing free downloads. But targeting individuals can only lead to bad things and will certainly not solve the issue of piracy. That leaves it up to you, yes you, the studios; make quality products or bite the bullet.

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

Paramount’s calculated distribution strategy for Paranormal Activity is more genius with each coming day as the movie maintains its threatening box office presence in its fourth running week, this week taking the cake for the #1 spot.  With about $22 million in its first wide-release theatrical weekend and having already grossed more than $60 million, Paranormal is stunning the competition and eating into the reliable revenue once taken for granted by LionsGate’s Saw franchise.

Which lends the question: Is competition better or worse for the Saw franchise? If we look back to the days of The Blair Witch Project (1999), Warner Bros.’ Deep Blue Sea benefited enormously from the mere fact that Blair Witch was getting butts in seats. Horror fans ready for thrills and kills who were locked out of sold-out shows of Blair Witch ended up settling for the alternative. That being said, it will be interesting to see how Universal’s highly-anticipated The Fourth Kind will fare against movies of its own kind.

But forget about inter-genre competition for now. Paranormal is a paramount victory for horror as it proves a major force relative to all competition. Films like Warner Bros.’ Where the Wild Things Are and Overture Films’ Law Abiding Citizen that were hoping to generate buzz and rebound from last week’s initial box office surge can now come to terms with their lack of profitability. As for Universal’s The Vampire’s Assistant, well, thanks for playing.

Although Paranormal may be the sleeper in the box office game, the real winner is Sony Pictures after its success with Zombieland and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. This week Sony unleashes its secret weapon, Michael Jackson’s This is It, which is bound to make bank. Other than representing a shameless exploitation of a recent pop culture icon’s death, the documentary is probably going to straight-up suck. The film was also likely created in two and a half days. But props to Sony for attempting to herd cattle into theaters on this one. Oliver Stone would be proud. As for me, I’ll stick to the music videos.

Carmen Wexler is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.

Roman Polanski

If you are the first type of person, then stop reading now because nothing can be said that will change your mind about what has happened to Mr. Polanski. For you, the law is the final word, and nothing can supersede it, even the prospect of the greater good.

Let’s get one thing straight. I could never justify Mr. Polanski’s actions, nor could anyone who has spoken out against his arrest. All sides agree that what he did was a vile, despicable thing.

But consider the situation in its entirety. The incident occurred 32 years ago. The prosecution in the case has long been suspected of malfeasance, despite the recent and somewhat coarse admission of former DA David Wells that he lied in the 2008 documentary. The victim, Samantha Geimer, is now a grown woman with three children. She has openly said that although the experience was unpleasant at the time, she forgives Mr. Polanski, and the case should be dismissed. In her own words: “He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.”

The man is now 76. He had been living peacefully in Europe for the past three decades with his wife and two children, continuing to direct incredible films. The horrors he has suffered in his life – managing to survive the Kraków Ghetto while his mother died in Auschwitz, and years later enduring the savage murder of his beautiful and 8-month-pregnant wife Sharon Tate by the Manson family – are more devastating than any prison sentence could ever be. So maybe he hasn’t served his time according to how our justice system says he needs to, but he has served his time.

I think everyone can agree that the overarching purpose of the law is to make the world a better place. If this is the case, then how does prosecuting him now, over three decades later, accomplish this purpose? For those who have led the charge against Mr. Polanski, was this really a morally justified attempt to right a past wrong (one which I’m certain wasn’t at the forefront of your minds – more likely not in your minds at all – until the arrest happened), or was it really just a petty crusade to prove your own sense of self-righteousness? Justice may be faceless and colorblind. But there is something to be said about a timely justice.

In the United States, such principles are etched into the very foundation of our justice system. We call this the Constitution. The rights to a fair and speedy trial as well as the right against being tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy) are precious cornerstones for the American democracy. Not only was Roman already tried in the 1977 case which ended in a plea-bargain, he was subsequently released early from his 90-day psychiatric prison sentence.

The legal question to be considering, therefore, is whether it is even legal to prosecute Roman a second time. Hapless L.A. prosecutors who’ve probably been “playing detective” since Beverly Hills Cop busted Roman in what can be referred to as a calculated sting operation upon learning that he would be receiving an award at the Zurich Film Festival. All this to satisfy an arrest warrant from 1978?

The man made a mistake, plain and simple. He was in a very unstable mental condition at the time, plagued by demons that no one should ever have to bear, and he made a mistake. It was a disastrous mistake, one that should never have happened, but it did. And knowing that the world was about to come down on him, he got scared and ran away.

Yet, the world moved on. At least, we thought it did. Now, Mr. Polanski is in prison, awaiting the next chapter in this tragedy that should have ended a long time ago. I, for one, say that we need to look beyond the written law, look deeper, to what the right thing to do is here and now.

So, I say, put down your pitchforks and let the poor man go. The man is far from a danger to society. The world is a better place with him in it.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.

 Let’s face it. For the past few years, the Oscars have been mind-numbingly dull. What is supposed to be a celebration of great achievements in filmmaking over the past year has morphed into an obligatory ceremony of tedious self-aggrandizement and politically correct pat-on-the-backs. The Academy’s recent decision to nominate ten films instead of five for the Best Picture award was a good start, but that’s all it was. Here is a list of seven more things the Oscars can do to not suck as much:

1. Pick a better host

 Jon Stewart politicized everything. Hugh Jackman turned the ceremony into the Tony Awards, Part 2. Ellen DeGeneres and Chris Rock bombed. Even Billy Crystal’s highly anticipated return in 2003 was lackluster at best. Heck, the only outstanding host of the past decade was Steve Martin. So bring him back. Ricky Gervais would be good too. Or Neil Patrick Harris, judging by his awesome performance at the Emmys. I swear, if some talentless cretin like Justin Timberlake gets picked to host, I’m going postal.

2. Separate Best Drama from Best Comedy

I’ve never sat through a Golden Globes ceremony because, well, what’s the point? But one thing they do right is separate the top award into two categories. Different genres, different styles, different intentions… different awards. You know those comedy/tragedy masks? Exactly. It makes so much sense it hurts.

3. Get rid of Best Animated Feature

Animation is a style, not a genre. Marginalizing what have often been some of the best pictures of the year (looking at you, Pixar) into a category that feels more like a pity award than anything else, is nonsensical and insulting to the creative team. So here’s an idea: let animated films qualify for the top award, and reinvent the category as “Best Animation.” That way you can separate the story from the way it is told. Win-win.

4. Create a category for Best Trailer

This seems out of left field, but think about it. Watch trailers for films like Where The Wild Things Are and A Serious Man and tell me with a straight face that hard work and creativity didn’t go into creating them. Sure, technically they’re just advertisements, but that doesn’t mean they can’t also be art forms.

5. Give out an award for Worst Picture

Yes, we all know about the Razzies. But this would be a good way to lighten the show up a bit, as well as boost ratings. And perhaps by publicly calling these films out as the steaming shit piles they are, it could serve as an incentive for filmmakers not to make as many of them.

6. Nix the shorts

If ever there was a time for a cigarette break, it’s during the announcements for Best Live Action Short Film, Best Documentary Short Subject, Best Animated… Jesus, I’m bored already. Maybe people would care more about these awards if they were actually given a chance to see the damn things beforehand. Some theaters screen them, but not nearly enough. So either release the shorts theatrically nation-wide, or air them all in a row, maybe as a sort of pre-Oscar special.

7. Get Joan and Melissa Rivers a restraining order from the red carpet

“Who are you wearing?” The most obnoxious question in the history of questions. I can’t help but think that other countries’ hatred towards America has something to do with these Oscar pre-shows, aka, self-indulgent fashion circle-jerks where rich, obsessive women fawn over their overdone hair and flamboyant gowns that probably cost so much they could feed an African village. This is a celebration of film, not a celebration of vanity. I swear that Joan and Melissa Rivers are partly responsible for 9/11.

On the morning of July 6, 2009, I sat down with a cup of coffee and started reading The Hollywood Reporter. On the front page was an article about Universal’s latest acquisition.

“Universal,” it read, “has won a four-studio bidding war to pick up film rights to the classic Atari video game, ‘Asteroids.’”

For the rock-dwellers, Asteroids was the arcade game introduced by Atari Inc. in the late 70’s, which amassed such popularity that it quickly became their best selling game of all time, spawning multiple sequels and spin-offs.  Its overly-simple gameplay – probably the main reason for its popularity – involves a small triangle that you move around shooting dots at moving circles.

“As opposed to today’s games,” the article continued, “there is no story line or fancy world-building mythology, so the studio would be creating a plot from scratch.”

Humor me by reading that last paragraph again. I’ll wait.

Okay, let’s recap: Asteroids. Four-studio bidding war. Creating plot from scratch. Does something seem off to you, too?

What Universal has “won” is one of potentially hundreds of hot new commodities that studios are gobbling up like fat kids at a buffet: retro games and toys. No doubt motivated by profit rather than selfless efforts to arouse nostalgia, this current grasping-at-straws trend epitomizes how the Hollywood studio system perceives its movie-going populace: we are cattle lining up to feed from their bountiful trough. But what the vast majority of us cattle are blinded to (and concurrently what the studios must be conscious of) is that this trough is poisoned with mediocrity and apathy by the higher-ups and their fawning armies of hacks and yes-men, leaving us little choice but to be content throwing money away in fruitless attempts to rekindle once-sacred memories, reborn on the silver screen not through purity or imagination, but through the shameless adulteration of an art form.

To give you some idea of where this trend is headed, here is a list of some properties already in development:

• Stretch Armstrong
• Hot Wheels
• Lego
• Battleship
• Candyland
• Monopoly
• Ouija
• Bazooka Joe
• Pac-Man
• Barbie
• View-Master

That’s right. Don’t adjust your monitors. The powers-that-be are actually making a movie, a full-length, big-budget, wide-release-intended movie, about this:

Up in Forest Lawn Cemetery, David O. Selznick is spinning in his grave.

Now hold on. Before you kill yourself, let’s consider the possibility, albeit a vague one, that some of these projects might actually turn out good. After all, Ridley Scott is the man in charge of Monopoly. Michael Bay’s Platinum Dunes (who, granted, haven’t produced a decent film since 2003’s Chainsaw remake, but look to be hitting all the right notes with the new Nightmare, knock on wood) is producing Ouija. Columbia’s Hot Wheels, helmed by McG, could be a G-rated Fast and the Furious for the kids, and Battleship is already being touted by Universal as an “epic naval action adventure” with Peter Berg in talks to direct. So what’s the big problem?

Is Ron Howard eyeing the screen adaptation of Stretch Armstrong?

Well, there isn’t one, per se. That is, if you’re the kind of person who shows up at the theater oblivious to the selection, and would have no second thoughts about choosing an IQ-murdering clusterfuck like Transformers 2 over a true cultural gem like The Hurt Locker. If you are one of these people, then stop reading this right now and go masturbate to a Uwe Boll movie or something. For the rest of you, the brave minority of moviegoers who continue to defy that oh-so-depressing norm by preferring substance over shallow spectacle, the issue is one of simple aggravation. Not a single one of the properties listed above (okay, maybe Candyland) has an inherent plot.

Herein lies the problem. Plot – the backbone of every story ever told – has become a secondary priority.

And what can we do? We are forced to sit there and take it as humankind’s time-honored tradition of storytelling – evolving from ancient orators and cave drawings into a vast array of outlets that have forged classics that continue to transcend generations – is bowled over and raped like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. “Squeal like a pig for me, cinema! Weeeeeeee!”

But that’s not being completely fair. For every mindless film that’s released, another germinates on the opposite side of the spectrum. Unfortunately, an enigma exists in this industry that prevents many substance-based films from seeing the light of day outside major cities. And even when they are accessible, sub-par marketing campaigns often further diminish their chances of being noticed, with distributors instead turning the volume up on their tentpoles, virtually guaranteeing their success despite whatever criticism they may suffer. This, in turn, affects box office grosses, which, let’s be honest, is the true indicator of how popular a film is. Despite a discouraging 19% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, Transformers 2 is, as of this writing, the number one movie of 2009. The Hurt Locker, by contrast, is number 87, despite its 98% rating, falling short of such cultural paragons as Dance Flick, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, and Tyler Perry’s Look, I Made Another Movie About Black People.

What films like Lego, Barbie, and fucking View-Master will do is further this enigma, even if they do turn out half-decent. And as time passes, with the studios perfecting this profit-formula of theirs, an atmosphere will be created in which the cinematic simpletons can claim the status of the elite, and the ones who truly understand the craft are marginalized even further.

Every so often, I encounter people who claim that there is no such thing as a bad film, that all experiences had in the theater are relative to ones taste, and anyone who disagrees with this notion is a pompous “arthouse fag.” I’m willing to bet that these are the same people who can stare at a monochromatic canvas in a modern art museum and compare its genius to that of a Rembrandt. On the contrary, there are bad films out there. A lot of them. And by shoving aside plot in favor of name-association, we are dooming ourselves to become a society where this kind of conscious degradation becomes the norm.

Movie studios have a responsibility I’m not quite sure they’re aware of. They are the ones with the power to lead us out of this cultural depression of endless sequels, remakes, and plotless toy adaptations, and instead forge a return to creative, original storytelling. What they think we want is not what we need. Bad movies are like fast food: they may currently be voluminous and fiscally assuring, but they’re slowly killing us inside. There are some who understand this, and are doing something about it. J.J. Abrams, Judd Apatow, and Darren Aronofsky, to name a few. Brave soldiers in the fight to uphold the kind of dignity that filmmaking deserves. But there are two sides to every coin. For every Abrams, there is a Ratner. For every Apatow, there is a Wayans. And for every Arnofsky, there is a Bay. If this capitalistic hijacking of cinema continues, then all we can do is hope that the younger generations, who will be brought up on these travesties, will be able to see through the fog of corrosion and inspire a filmic Renaissance of sorts.

And it’s not like there are a shortage of fresh ideas out there. Every year, dozens of original screenplays etch their way onto the exalted Black List – a compilation of yet-to-be-produced “favorites” that have garnered the attention of at least four studio execs. But more often than not, the studios, in their infinite wisdom, decide against rolling the dice on a script that everyone who’s read seems to like, and instead hire one of their hacks to write up 90 pages of uninspired drivel based on whichever property from yesteryear they can get their hands on: a plotless arcade game from the 80’s, an elastic doll from the 70’s, a bubble gum wrapper from the 50’s…

Asteroids are only the beginning. The depths to which these executives will sink seem to have no limits. Roger Ebert joked about this in a July article on his website entitled “The Toys That Ate Hollywood,” suggesting that films based on yo-yos, marbles, and sandboxes may be right around the corner. The sad part is that Ebert’s jests aren’t outside the realm of possibility. When View-Master has the green light, bet the house.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.

Today the Academy announced that it is altering its voting system for Best Picture so that members of the Academy will rank their favorites of the year by preference, with the award going to whichever film ranks highest on average (instead of simply selecting their opinion of the best film). This is just about the worst idea ever. An increasingly democratic Oscar’s ballot is not going to deliver any more justice to the system. In fact, if anything it will result in choosing a film for Best Picture that is entirely unworthy of the award.

Is Oscar losing his luster?

Traditionally in the last few decades, members of the Academy voted for their absolute favorite film among the selection of five films. Now that number is ten–a brilliant move to bolster DVD sales, box office results, and Oscar ratings which now grants five additional films with the marketing glamour of being considered as a nomination for Best Picture. A smart move all around.

But now things get a wee bit more political. If, for example, there are two films which are overwhelmingly popular versus the other eight, the films which average out as a safe 2nd or 3rd place on a person’s ballot have a clear-cut advantage of winning the award for Best Picture. So now Academy voters will have the power to doctor a film’s ranking artificially, thereby resulting in the lesser deserving films coming out on top.

Since when was Best Picture the average accumulation of the Academy’s favorite selection? This greatly affects those louder films or films which are polar opposites of each other while benefiting films conservative in their approach. Something tells me we’re in for a lot of upsets. And unlike the NCAA Tournament’s “Big Dance,” the Academy simply cannot afford to sacrifice its prestige (and ratings) by continuing in this direction.

Seriously folks, do we really want The Reader winning Best Picture?

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