Comments (16)

• What gets me about all these straight-to-DVD prequel/sequel “comedies” is that untalented/uninspired writers and directors are making high-five/low-six figures to churn out this dreck.

  Hell, for 10K, I’ll defecate an 80-page screenplay that can be every bit as unfunny and idiotic.

  Comment by P.J. — August 20, 2008 @ 10:30 am  Reply to this post

• Surely that’s the stupidest name for a movie division ever? Did they think “Paramount These Films Are Too Cheap To Star Anybody Who’s Famous Productions” was a bit of a mouthful!

  And “renaming and reinvigorating” a division launched last year is hardly a positive sign either…

  Comment by DH — August 20, 2008 @ 11:06 am  Reply to this post

• I have a bad feeling that these “Naked Gun” spin-offs will be bad imitations of the already bad “Disaster Movie/Epic Movie” flicks who think fairly up to date pop culture references are a good substitution for jokes.

  Oh well, at least Paramount is actually doing something, and I guess that’s a start.

  Comment by Furious D — August 20, 2008 @ 11:27 am  Reply to this post

• and soon hollywood was no more. ruined on bad creative, financial and marketing decisions.

  Comment by denver — August 20, 2008 @ 1:16 pm  Reply to this post

• DH said:

  Surely that’s the stupidest name for a movie division ever?

  Famous Players-Lasky Corp. was the company that originally founded Paramount Pictures in 1912. And Famous Studios was the cartoon division of Paramount founded in 1942 after Paramount took over Fleischer Studios and began producing Popeye and Superman cartoons. So it may just be an extremely rare case of Hollywood acknowledging its past.

  Which doesn’t mean the DVDs won’t suck.

  Comment by Anonymous — August 20, 2008 @ 1:49 pm  Reply to this post

• Paramout Famous, not to be confused with Famous Players, the Canadian exhibition chain that Paramount owned for decades, and had, from 1999 until recently, theatres in Toronto and Montreal called the Famous Players Paramount.

  Comment by ToddfromToronto — August 20, 2008 @ 1:56 pm  Reply to this post

• PFP is going to start off by producing crap?? Why?? I know it’s all straight to video but they could at least put some effort into creating some well-made original work. It’s like if Ferrari decided to open another company to “remake” Kias and Daewoos…

  Comment by Enrique — August 20, 2008 @ 2:13 pm  Reply to this post

• Hey, P.J.,

  SOLD!

  Have your people call my people.

  Comment by Big Time Producer — August 20, 2008 @ 2:13 pm  Reply to this post

• A tip of my hat to “Anonymous” for being knowledgable about the storied history of Paramount Pictures. When one talks to studio executives, invariably their individual knowledge of the history of Hollywood rates most of them somewhere between “imbecile” and “moron”.

  Comment by EWK — August 20, 2008 @ 4:19 pm  Reply to this post

• (same anonymous as comment #5 above)

  I have a friend who worked in the office of Laemmle Theaters, who took a call from an exec at Universal trying to find out how to spell Laemmle.

  Comment by Anonymous — August 20, 2008 @ 4:52 pm  Reply to this post

• Because of the lack of work after a strike, with a diminished pilot season and less feature films going into production, don’t be surprised if you see bigger and better names doing these things.

  Comment by Joel Bryce — August 20, 2008 @ 6:22 pm  Reply to this post

• whats wrong with giving more actors, directors, writers, etc. more jobs?

  Comment by Anonymous — August 21, 2008 @ 11:12 am  Reply to this post

• Come on, all you cynics, this could be good! I suggest the merging of sequels. Something like “Three Men and the Lost Boys,” where the baby from “Three Men and a Baby” grows up to be a vampire and the three dads enlist Haimster and Feldog to save her before she makes her first kill and becomes a full vampire.

  Comment by Famous Blogger — August 21, 2008 @ 11:31 am  Reply to this post

• I’d like to know what research Paramount is looking at when they make these decisions. We know Paramount is flush with money this year, so I guess they feel they can piss some of it away.

  I understand the business model of why Disney makes direct-to-DVD sequels of animated classics. Kids have voracious video appetites, and parents buy tons of titles to keep them entertained.

  And I understand the direct-to-DVD horror market. There’s a small group of fans looking for more adventurous material that won’t play the local cineplex.

  But are there really a large group of people who want to buy Grease 3 or Naked Gun 3? (Grease 2 and Naked Gun 2 were already made.) Will Netflix and Blockbuster buy enough copies to pay for their production costs? Will people really pay $17 for one of these DVDs, or are they destined to the $5 bargain bin?

  Unless there’s research to support it, it sounds like a money-wasting idea to me.

  Comment by Dan Zee — August 21, 2008 @ 1:41 pm  Reply to this post

• This DVD unit will provide work for newbies. It’s not as if the product is going to be released in the theaters – it’s being produced for the fans of a certain title. Surely there are worse things in the movie business to complain about – e.g. the marquis product.

  Comment by dudeasincool — August 23, 2008 @ 2:40 pm  Reply to this post

• Screw Hollywood and the soulless critters who make this kind of crap. As if they weren’t cranking out enough drivel already. Seriously, this is EXACTLY why I seldom go to the theatres anymore.

  Comment by Tico — August 23, 2008 @ 8:18 pm  Reply to this post