The Economist Interviews Sony Pictures CEO, Michael Lynton, And What We Think About It

If you don't read it or check out their site every once in a while, I'm sure you're still aware of magazine called The Economist. I don't subscribe to it or anything, but I do peruse the site and download a podcast or two, every now and then. If you're interested in what The Economist is all about, it's a weekly news magazine that's done out of London. It's almost more like a newspaper, but it's got a glossy front, so I call that a magazine. They claim that it's "not a chronicle of economics". No, not even... The say they aim "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". Well, I'm not sure what that all means or if it's actually a complete sentence, but it hasn't kept me away from the content they produce. Now, what I really like about them is that every once in a while, they come up with something that ties all my worlds together. This interview with Michael Lynton, the current Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment is one such thing. It's about 15 minutes long and I've embedded it below, it's a great interview. Grab a coffee, sit back, and give it a watch. I have some thoughts on what he says below...



One of the most interesting things about this interview is how he looks at "Paranormal Activity" and low-budget films as 'phenomenon' and not a business model. I have to say, I both agree and disagree. Most certainly, "Paranormal Activity" was a phenomenon, and so was "Blair Witch", but there is a common thread between the two - they're low-budget horror. I guess studios can't see it, or maybe I'm just stupid, but I think horror lends itself so well to low-budget filmmaking, that an extremely well done low-budget horror film will always have the ability to break into the mainstream. Not only that, there's SO many low-budget horror films out there that are good, and COULD make a profit (but won't break through to the mainstream or move the needle for a company like Sony Pictures) that a small, niche company could consistently turn a profit by churning them out and then properly marketing and distributing them. That, my indie friends, IS a business model. It's just one that Sony wouldn't be interested in.

The other interesting point he makes is about piracy... There's obviously a dark side to piracy. More so, it's mostly a dark side, but there IS a good side that studios don't see. On one level, torrent sites are no different than a DVR. I download TV shows that I miss all the time. Hell, I'll download an entire season of something to get caught up. I don't see that as bad... why? Because people do that all the time, legally, with their DVR's and all I'm doing is getting caught up, so I can watch your programming at its regular time - and then you can show me your ads. It's called time-shifting and it's a problem that the networks and studios are going to have to deal with. I've also argued MANY times that the torrent sites and file sharing is GREAT for indie film. No one wants to distribute your film? Don't know how to get it out there and drum up interest? Well, put it out there for free. If it's good, people will spread the word, interest will build, then you'll be able to get screenings, distributors will come knocking and, all of a sudden, your film's a success. "Ink", which just came out, is a classic example of how that can work. Is it good for the studios? No, they have nothing to gain from it. Good for the indies? Absolutely...

Whatever side of the argument you're on, in the end, it's just always good to be up to date and understand how the studio system works. We all love our indie film and we're more than happy to toil away it, but... if the studio's came knocking, you know you'd answer the door. So, you better understand what makes them tick...

Have a great weekend, see you next week!

"Ink", the weekend box office and the week in horror...

Before I even get into the box office round up and the new horror coming out on DVD this week, I need to mention a film that I just watched called "Ink". Has anyone else seen it? With all due respect to "Paranormal Activity", it's the indie film of the year, as far as I'm concerned. Go find this film. I've reached out to the guys who made it and I hope to be able to talk with them soon. Not only did they make one of the most intriguing films of the year on a meagre budget, the way they distributed it is revolutionary. Stay tuned on this. Like I said, I hope to discuss it with them and have something for you soon.

So, as for mainstream horror... Lionsgate's "Daybreakers" didn't actually do that bad over the weekend. It was the best new release of the week, even though it came in fourth overall... behind "Avatar", "Sherlock Holmes" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel". "Avatar" is just a beast... it's unstoppable and I'm predicting that it surpasses "Titanic" as the highest grossing film of all time. "Sherlock Holmes" is a bit of a surprise. I haven't given it much more than a passing thought, but I've talked to a lot of people who have seen it and some were even saying it's Oscar-worthy. Granted, without having seen it, I argued that. In any case, reviews on "Daybreakers" are good and it had a strong opening. "The Book of Eli" comes out this Friday and I don't have much of an opinion on that, either... we'll have to wait and see. As for the week in horror on DVD, it's fairly tame. As usual, you can click here and see all the trailers on our Youtube page and you can click on the titles to be taken to their Amazon page, where you can read more and/or buy the film.

So, without question, the biggest budget release of the week is Rob Zombie's "Halloween II". If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one, but... for me, these films are so far away from what Rob Zombie's good at. Not only that, I just don't like where he's going with Michael Myers. Truth is, he's humanizing him way too much. I've always liked the fact that Michael Myers was a relentless, faceless killer that was pure evil. You never heard him mutter a word, show a reaction, grunt, spit, whatever... he was just unstoppable evil. Zombie has him grunting, talking... we see parts of his face. He's just too human. I get that you're going for that 'brutal' and 'realistic' feel and, if that's the case, you shouldn't be fucking with a horror icon, make up a whole new franchise. Those are my thoughts, disagree with me, if you will... actually, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

There really ought to be a new sub-genre title for films like "CockHammer", maybe micro-shock porn-horror? "Cockhammer" comes from writer/director Kevin Strange, who's the guy who brought you "Dead Shit", "Colonel Kill Motherfuckers" and "Stiff Jobs". There's a lot of people making films like these, but Strange is one of the best. Really, he's just doing one of those things that Hollywood won't do. There's lots of tits, ass, cock, obscenities, vomiting, poop, etc... and his films are extremely entertaining. Check out the trailer, it's not like they hold back or anything. There's definitely a market for films like these...

"The Riverman" came out in 2004 as an A&E Television movie and I actually remember watching it... and kinda liking it. It's about a series of interviews that are conducted with convicted serial killer Ted Bundy in hopes of gaining insight into the Green River Killer, who is terrorizing Seattle. It's like "Silence of the Lambs", but with real killers... played by actors. Cary Elwes actually does a bang-up job of portraying Ted Bundy.

Lastly, they're releasing DVD's of the original "House On Sorority Row" from 1983 and "Riot on 42nd Street" from 1987.