The Blue Fool’s Into Gold
I mentioned the painfully unoriginal one-sheet art for Fool’s Gold in comments a few entries down. In the words of Syd Field: Don’t talk, show!
I suppose this proves many Hollywood films are unoriginal, over-marketed pastiches. In other words, it proves nothing at all. It certainly adds to Daniel’s argument that we’re currently in a cinematic Potter’s Field, filled with the unmarked graves of the unwanted or the forgettable.
I was amused by an interview a few days ago in Variety (I’ll spare you the link) where some anonymous expert was– with an apparently straight face– explaining the reasons why Meet The Spartans beat Rambo (by less than a mill). Apparently, younger males saw Spartans, Older males saw Rambo. But what the guy didn’t mention: Both BO totals were so low essentially nobody saw anything, and he did not factor in the built-in box office that comes with Carmen Electra’s rack. All goes to show that there are some jobs in Show business you DON’T want.
–Skot C.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:00 am
I see your point - it’s like the producers looked at INTO THE BLUE and said “I got it! Depict the couple as TOGETHER! Oh and less blue, more gold! We’ll make a fortune!
February 1st, 2008 at 8:19 am
Actually, FOOL’S GOLD might be the product of a phenomenon you remarked on a few months ago about genre remakes:
“My remake policy is never redo a classic - always remake a movie that had a great premise but somehow didn’t quite work. That way the premise gets another chance, and only a handful of people are familiar with the original and probably don’t like it anyway. Everybody wins!”
INTO THE BLUE certainly qualifies as a flawed concept. Hot, half-naked young stars and buried treasure are the positives, But overall it was a risible, cliché-ridden caper film that went mostly unseen. Now, Ms. Hudson’s and Mr. McConaughey’s people thought, if we make it AGAIN as a Romantic Comedy… Katching!