Video killed the movie star

This is the one you've been waiting for. This segment analyises the growing trend of Hollywood's ego. From Cecil B. De Mille to James Cameron, and of course, don't forget Kevin Costner, film makers have had the audiacity to use their power to make films that totally alienate audience because they forgot one thing along the way. Sanity. Even some Hollywood action films purvey some sanity, but watching a Ridley Scott film recently is like watching a man slowly die by having a paper cut inserted on him every ten seconds until he can't stand the pain no more. Here's to simplicity, or more importantly, what's left of it.

Ego takes over film
Film is over $100 million to make
Film is over $200 million to make
Film is two and a half hours in length
Film gets a director's cut
Two main actors doing another film together-
Any film that is made purely for the money
Any actor acting for the money
Film needs to show people coming out of cinema giving film praise
Film goes to many film festivals

Reason for deduction:Well, we all know that once you get into the fame capacity (see here), you are going to get the ego that comes with it. People start with small roles in small films so that they can get a few bucks to get by. It's better than doing work as a waiter/ess. So, when they finally hit the big time, that fame capacity kicks in and you have yourself an ego. Directors start demanding more money, actors start their ridiculous demands, producers start sacking people and extras look into the bloody camera. Is it worth in the end. Well, for those who we have mentioned above it is, but of course it is always the cinema goer who loses out in the end goddammit.

"Film is over $100 million to make"

Worth:-50

"Film is over $200 million to make"

Worth:-100

Reason for deduction: $100-200 million. Not much really. Hey, you could probably spend that much in an hour if you had to. But, for Hollywood, they'd rather spend it on something that would comfort the ego. Hence, Titanic, Waterworld, Batman and Robin, True Lies etc. You see, it must be physically impossible to make a film for under $50 million nowadays because first you gotta pay for everything.

Actors
A decent male one	$15-30 million
A decent female one	$10-20 million
A decent supporting actor	$1-5 million
A decent supporting actress	$1-2 million
Rest of cast	$1-2 million
Extras	$500,000-2 million
Crew
A decent director	$1-10 million
Just a director	$500,000-1 million
Producers	$1-20 million
Executive Producer	$1-10 million
Actual Writer	Pittance
Writer just for credit	$1-5 million
Rest of crew	$1-10 million
Film Effects
Computer imagery	$20-100 million
Pyrotechnics	$1-10 million
Costumes	$1-15 million
Artifacts	$5-50 million
Set building	$10-50 million
Miscellaneous
Drugs for cast and crew	$1-5 million
Alcohol for cast and crew	$1-5 million
Prostitutes for cast and crew	$1-10 million
AA and drug rehab	$1-10 million
Lost days on set (per day)	$1 million
Damaged or stolen equipment	$1 million
Accommodation	$5-10 million
Advertising	$10-25 million
Actor's assistants	$500,000-1 million

If we take the minimum amounts of each category, which would be for an action or sci-fi film, we get at least $92.5 million. By the time you've pitched the idea, you know that if it is accepted, this will be given to you as the bear minimum. This why to make a small film you must try to cut corners in some areas, i.e. B-grade actors and actresses, cheap drugs and booze, shoddy hotels, cheap hookers, no rehab, el cheapo television special effects (the dreaded blue or green screen), no script, etc.

How dare they make cheap films. Just because they are better doesn't mean they should be cheap.

"Film is two and a half hours in length"

Worth:-50

Reason for deduction: At the two hour mark in a film, it should be over or just about to get to the scene where the shoddy schmultz or a violent, bloody gun battle decides to join us. If the film decides to wander off over the two and a half-hour mark, then it's time to back to the editing room and cut out some scenes (namely the schmultzy family values scene or the obligatory villain giving away plot scene). Sure, the longer the film, the better the chance it has of winning the Oscar for best film (look at previous examples - Titanic = 194 minutes, The English Patient = 164 minutes, Forrest Gump = 140 minutes, Dances with Wolves = Are you kidding us?). So, how about a short film, 90 minutes where it just gets it over and done with and doesn't have that schmultzy scene at the end.

"Film gets a director's cut"

Worth:-40

Reason for deduction: What is with a directors cut, we hear you ask? Well, some films are just sooooo good that they must have another ten-fifteen minutes on them (66 minutes for Betty Blue, 71 minutes for Das Boot). Come on. If these films were so good to start with, then obviously they don't need to have something added in just cos. Most likely, a director's cut is the property of an overblown ego (James Cameron [Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2], Wolfgang Petersen [Das Boot], although we'll give him leniency because it was a two part TV series). And most likely, it will lessen the impact of the film. So, we think its time to take back our ten-fifteen minutes and say, hey, leave it on the cutting room floor where it belongs goddammit.

"Two main actors doing another film together"

Worth:-100

Reason for deduction: If two actors seem to have the same rapport together, and actually become friends because they acted together, then there will be no doubt as to whether they will work together again. Take Woody and Wesley for a moment. They did this film that didn't do much, but they became friends so they did "White Man Can't Jump". That's great, but then Wesley had done a couple of duds in a row and his career was floundering, so Woody calls him up and says "I've got this lame brained actioner that I'm sure will work. It'll get your career back on track". So, Wesley does "Money Train". Now, Wesley's career is looking up and Woody is making small films thanks to his stupid stance on industrial hemp (I think he's been trying to smoke it, note the emphasis on trying). There is no doubt in the next few years they will come out and make another film just to get Woody's career going again and Wesley's will suffer (or take over the hemp campaigning). So, now we will have to see another lesson of brotherly love and godammit, there really shouldn't be. (Look out for more example of this buffoonery and deduct harshly)

"Any film that is made purely for the money"

Worth:-50

Reason for deduction:Number one rule of film making: You do it for the money you dream of getting when you release the film and everyone is going to go and see you monstrosity (sorry, movie). Sure, some bright-eyed virginal movie maker will say that they made the film because they want to be known as making a film that fans will go see after they become famous, but, they are kidding themselves. That's why they have film festivals, so that some distributor will pick them up and make money for them. The Hollywood mentality: Spend more on the film and advertising, reap the benefits at the end. Whoa, there are no accountants or business people in Anarchy, but we get the feeling that this is the stupidest money making philosophy ever conceived. You've gotta wonder why a film so popular as Forrest Gump, which made $600 million plus worldwide would at this present moment, "BE IN DEBT". True Lies makes $300 million box office. IN DEBT. Eddie Murphy makes a dud film (Beverly Hills Cop 2&3, The Golden Child, Vampire in Brooklyn, Another 48 Hours). IN SURPLUS (why oh why oh why). (We are glad to announce that as of this moment, Eddie Murphy's Holy Man has flopped and will lose substantial amounts of money. Hooray. Hooray. About time one of his duds failed.) The film festival mentality: Make an el cheapo film, flog it off to as many film festivals as possible, and if it don't get picked up, at least you can write it off on your next tax return. In many countries around the world, they plaudit there film makers if their films make a film festival. Take Australia for example. They jump up and down every time a film hits a festival, reckoning that it has hit the big time, when actually a couple of American critics and distributors will turn up and get a 90 minute sleep.

• In the past year, there has been plaudits for Australian movies such as Radiance, Dance Me to My Song, Head On, The Well, The Quiet Room, some film we can't remember the title, but had the misfortune as to seeing and has been subsequently lost in the film archives, (you know the one, with the guy for Bad Boy Bubby, that movie where he glad wraps his cat and parents), etc. These are films that have not even been seen, and some aren't even that good anyway.
• (Note: The Well got nominated for best costume in Australia Film Awards. The film features the most appalling wardrobe which it's very best item was a granny skirt that had been mangled and put through the mud a coupla hundred times and then washed to make it look like it was worn out)

"Any actor acting for the money"

Worth:-40

Reason for deduction: Actors are such wonderful creatures. There are those out there that would make you believe that they do a certain film because the movie was a good idea, and sounded like it was going to be popular amongst its target audience, and that it will go down as a classic. Now, put your hand up if you believe this crap they are selling. What, that many hey. Well, you are surely misinformed. Acting is a job. People do a job for the money. Some do it better than others, and it shows. This is where this criteria kicks in. We're gonna pick on those who flagrantly fraud the system by putting in average performances, when they can obviously do better.

• Perfect example no. 1: Delroy Lindo in Feeling Minnesota. He looked like he was in pains doing the role because it was beneath him. He was right, but he didn't have to look it.
• Perfect example no. 2: Kevin Spacey in The Negotiator. If you watch closely, he looks as though he is waiting for something to happen in this film, because it certainly didn't within the film. No wonder he ran away with Samuel L. Jackson in the end.

"Film needs to show people coming out of cinema giving film praise"

Worth:-50

Reason for deduction: Coming out of the cinema, the first thing you expect to see is the blinding light as it hits you once again. But lately, if you go to a late night session of a movie, the first thing you may see is some try hard comedian coming up to you with a microphone asking you how the movie was. Sure, your first reaction is that it was good or some other good adjective, mainly because this is your chance at 2 seconds of fame. But, you know the first thing you think of when one of these try hards comes at you, you know the movie sucks and the boffins at the publicity have got themselves another winner. We can't wait for the day when the try hard decides to go to a late night session of Godzilla, where no kids are around and see the response. Hopefully the try hard gets what he deserves.

"Film goes to many film festivals"

Worth:-50

Reason for deduction: We don't usually say this, but television got it right. The show South Park featured an episode where a film festival came to town and it showed a lot of films that were about gay cowboys. Yeah, film festivals do show a lot of films about gay cowboys or intersexual relationships or old films we care to forget or art films that a slower than the film projector or a film with a bunch of actors said to be of the next generation. As it says above, first and foremost, film festivals are tax write-offs. How do you explain that most of the films that go to these festivals are seen by nobody. Films at a festival very rarely go on to bigger things, so if your film is gonna become another waste of celluloid, then you might as well haul it over the circuit, pay less tax, and then sleep with the right people so they can finance your next film. But, there is nothing worse than a movie boldly claiming that they won an award at a film festival. Sure, we'll give you a best film and acting gongs, but most popular? What the�? Jury prize? Who cares. That usually means that it got a participation award, like the ones you get when you do poorly in an event and they give everyone a prize cos "Everyone's a winner". One final thing: The Las Vegas Film Festival. If it won an award at that film festival, then deduce another 50 points. This is what they call in the AFI, the retarded festival because it is judged by retards (no, not the actually handicapped, but dumb people with sane minds).