Well, yesterday I saw the movie in question.  Wasn't awful.  Wasn't particularly memorable either.

What I remember 24 hours later:  the skydiving scene was nicely done (and I was happy to find out via the credits that at least part of it was done practically).    Ben Kingsley was fun to watch, and  I liked SuperPepper even though that was telegraphed so hard I got a little impatient waiting for the payoff.   And at least the climax didn't involve the destruction of another major city.

Other than that, all the going-through-the-motions of telling a story were completely wasted - it might have worked if they were actually going to commit to this idea that Tony will never put on the suit again.  But everyone over the age of six knows he's going to put the suit on again until Marvel movies stop turning a profit.

Bottom line, Shane Black now joins Joss Whedon in the category of filmmakers who could make really interesting stuff, but are making these soulless McSpectacles instead.   But maybe one or both of them will use the Soderbergh playbook and use their new clout to make a few challenging projects in between tentpoles.  We'll see.

Currently reading The Friedkin Connection - William Friedkin's new autobio.   Pretty fascinating story about a guy who didn't even pay much attention to movies until adulthood, and then became known as a "hot" young director before he'd done much of anything.   His first feature was a Sonny and Cher vehicle, and then just a couple of years later he made The French Connection and The Exorcist.

I worked for the guy twice and both times he was pretty cool and easy-going.  Others say otherwise, but that wasn't my experience of him.   

But he doesn't even mention the projects that I worked on, which I guess means I can put those stories in MY bio someday.

That comment was annoying as hell - it wasn't creative freedom that sank those studios, it was exorbitant spending.  Giving an artist creative freedom doesn't mean "let them spend all our money".  Creative freedom within reasonable boundaries is what he's talking about. 

And I agree with Soderbergh that it's a fine idea.  It's been done before, it's being done now. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - but if you couple it with fiscal responsibility then the risk is minimal. 

Universal gave GL a million dollars to make a movie, and they agreed to make no demands or changes to it whatsoever.   The result was American Graffiti.    They offered the same deal to four other filmmakers - Doug Trumbull used his million to make Silent Running - which tanked, but it was way ahead of its time and has achieved cult status since.  The other three movies were forgettable.  But Graffiti alone made back the five million and much much more.

We're also adding an adorable youngster to the cast: our cousin Oliver. 

You're going to love the crazy hijinks that little rascal gets up to!

Now there's a classic.    That's a movie that would have zero chance of being greenlit today.

This is what comes from seeing Space Cowboys at a formative age.

However, there is something to be said for being the first human to die on another planet.   That person would be almost as famous as Neil Armstrong - they just wouldn't get to enjoy any perks from it.

On the bright side, you may now occupy yourselves by guessing which one was chosen.

/just keepin' ya busy

I say you both win.

I'm doing a convention appearance in Houston in August, so put me down for a "no" on that one.

However, Bite Me, Billings Montana would be acceptable.

Fortunately, Blue Harvest is spoken for.    http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=46977