I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I pronounce it that way. It may be correct, but it also sounds ridiculous.

Thanks for the good vibes, sir. I need it to balance against the hate. Recording Castlecast in a few minutes from now. I'll definitely be bringing all this up in the A.P.B. segment (No, I'm not going to explain that. It's not my fault you don't watch Castle OR listen to my stuff).

Jeez, Trey. Why don't you just yank away my football and drink my milkshake while you're at it.

I co-host a weekly podcast all about Castle (My Mom doesn't watch the show, FYI. Although, it probably doesn't matter since she's not a Nielsen member, and don't get me started on that BS). In our news segment, we're always reading about strong numbers and early-season pick-ups for the program. Now, your definition of "hit" may differ from ABC's, but the show must be doing something right because McPherson (president of ABC) has expressed often how pleased he is with Castle's numbers.

Is it unlikely that Castle fans would go to a theater to see Slither? Sure, but not impossible. However, it is more likely that Nathan Fillion fans would do it, which can be mutually exclusive (I tuned into Castle because of Fillion. I wasn't crazy about the pilot, but I stuck around for him and the show grew on me). Case in point, I've seen numerous instances lately, of folks who aren't Horror or Comic Book fans but have stated explicitly that they will happily go see Joss Whedon's latest projects, Cabin In The Woods and The Avengers, respectively.

Truth is, we'll never know for certain how Nathan Fillion's current popularity would affect the Box Office for Slither or Serenity because Castle and Fillion's current popularity didn't exist at the time. I was merely suggesting it might have helped.

But hey, I'm not in the business so what do I know?

Let's just agree to disagree. I'm sure we can at least both agree that Slither is good.

*cringes* Oooo, sometimes that font is not kind to particular words: "SUTHER"?

Not crazy about the numerous times DiF rips on certain actors.

Having said that, this commentary is totally going on DVD. I also tweeted about it to James Gunn. I hope he listens.

EDITED TO ADD: At the end, Brian is trying to figure out why this movie starring Nathan Fillion wasn't a hit.

The Answer: It didn't come out NOW. And I mean RIGHT NOW, like this past weekend. Fillion has a huge, hit show, he's been in more and this is October.

Same goes for Serenity. The firefly fan base is way bigger now than it was back then, as is Fillion because of his exposure. Most importantly (and I can't believe Universal made the same mistake twice, with Scott Pilgrim), DON'T SHOW YOUR MOVIE A BUNCH FOR FREE BEFORE IT COMES OUT!

I don't know who this Pavlick person is, but I, John Pavlich think he sounds smart... and I bet his dick is huge.

Yep, sure did.

I second the need/demand for DiF to start doing Coen Brothers films. Just sayin'.

Oh, I forgot I had sort of instigated the discussion. Cool beans.

I think another aspect to consider on this subject is how movies are made today versus back then. What I mean is this:

Dorkman talks about how Ghostbusters actually had a preset release date to meet, and they were given at least a whole year to do that. Not only does that happen almost always now, but the time window is much smaller in a lot of cases. The key difference in that regard is in Dorkman's impression of the Studio Executive: "We don't understand this weird thing you're doing, but as long as you can meet our date, we'll give you X amount of dollars and leave you alone to go do it".

Back in the day, a movie studio was often owned by one guy. One guy who was extremely loaded and also had other businesses, so he didn't live and die by this studio making money hand over fist. He wasn't as invested in the product itself, he was only as invested as the amount of money he put in. An artist could come in and say:

"Hey, Mr. Big Time. I was thinking I'd like to make a sprawling war picture, that takes place in the future and they're fighting over water."

"The future, you say? Fighting over water?"

"That's right. Water is a rare commodity at this point."

"Hmmm. I don't know, that sounds kind of depressing."

"I'm way ahead of you, sir. At the center of it is a really touching, really hopeful love story."

"People do like a good romance. Tell me, is there action?"

"You bet! It's in the future, so there are lots of hi-tech gadgets and chase scenes involving hover craft!"

"Sounds exciting! How much?"

"Well, Big Time, we've worked it out in advance and we could do it comfortably for $3 million."

"Sure, sure. You know what I'd like to see? Can a water tower blow up in the third act, maybe have the two leads kiss in the foreground?"

"What a great idea, sir! The city is planning to detonate an old water tower just outside of town anyway! Instant production value!"

"Excellent! Tell you what, if you can work in a scene at the bowling alley I own on 7th Street--"

"Oh, I know that place! I met my fiance there!"

"Even better! Have the leads meet-cute there, and get that nice, young actress from our last picture. Do all that, and we're good. Hell, I'll even give you an extra million to make the picture extra special!"

"Yes sir!"

Then, the guy would go off and make the picture, the big wig would stay out of it. He wouldn't get involved. He's a businessman. His needs are met. Even if the movie doesn't make a mint, he knows his bowling alley will become popular and make the profits. AND, he gets to see a water tower explode all cinematic like.

Sadly, movies aren't made with such carefree ambition anymore, at least not often. Now, studios are run by so many people, all serving a wealth of different masters, who all have their own agendas and ideas. You know what else? You can bet dollars to donuts those guys are gonna be breathing down the artists' necks, especially after they put so much money on the line (God movies cost way too much to make these days), and the studio's clout and success depends so much on this one picture quite often.

It's even worse if the big dogs aren't checking up, but rather sending their underlings. Those guys are middle men who desperately want to keep their cushy jobs, or sometimes just want to justify it! And don't even get me started on marketing, test screenings, focus groups and the "formula" of producing box office gold! God forbid you over think, and therefore over sell your movie!

Everything looks alright in my Google Chrome browser, except now the border around this box (as well as the one at the top of the page) is gray, instead of the usual blue.

Eh? Is that a good thing?

I'm using Google Chrome, and near as I could tell, my connection was just fine. Your guess is as good as mine. I emailed a screen cap.

Would DiF have much to say about Dog Soldiers? The Descent on the other hand, I second this idea. That's a visceral, haunting mood piece... as long as it's the Director's Cut version, not the Theatrical version. Thankfully, I believe the DC is the only version that exists on DVD & Blu-ray, and the theatrical cut elements are simply supplemental material/deleted scenes.

After reading your post about DRVE, I have to ask, what's with all the negativity? Are you merely having a bad day? Do you need a hug? I'm here for you.

Anyway, I'll try to watch the rest, but right away, I got 2:37 into that first link before I had to pause and come back here. This is another case of someone stating their opinion as fact. To anyone who has ever done this, or might do this: DON'T! It does favors for no one, and makes you sound like an asshole.

I'm of course referring to the beginning of that first vid where the author says "No Country For Old Men is obviously bad!" but doesn't explain why, and also says he doesn't need to because it's so obviously bad. Right off, this author has lost me. He's basically saying, "My word is law. I am an authority on this. Listen to me." Why? Why should I? Just because you make bold, declarative statements without any evidence to back them up? Sorry, but that's not how this works.

Roger Ebert has a book called "Your Movie SUCKS!" It's sort of a joke title. If you opened the paper to see what he said about the latest blockbuster and all he said was, "It sucks", you'd be pissed, right? I would, because that's not a review. That tells me nothing. I can't potentially learn anything about storytelling from that. Thankfully, Ebert's book isn't just a Jack Torrance special. It goes in depth on why he feels these particular movies are not good.

So, when some guy (who I have no idea what his credentials are, by the way or if he even has any) opens with, "X is obviously bad", that just makes me respond, "Obviously not, since I can't just take your word for it, and especially when I disagree on the face of it."

In regards to Kill Bill (and the 2 and a half minutes of this review I've seen), I feel the author's opinions might work better applied to Death Proof. I'll keep watching, but I'm very, very concerned.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay, while many of the points made in the video are valid, funny and would possibly make the movie better, I disagree that what we got in the first place is bad. I like Kill Bill as is (Volume 1 at least, not so much Volume 2).