Well, truth behind that is that just as we started production, Ringo got a package from a friend in Madagascar.  I was just six years old, so weed was pretty much all I'd done at the time.  But that marching powder Ringo got hold of, damn.   

When I woke up two weeks later, I immediately sketched the first designs for both the Flying Glove and the Apple Bonkers on a cocktail napkin and the rest is history.   And John kept that drawing taped to his fridge for years.

And there you have Reason #492 of Why Trey Hates The Internetz.  One un-proof-read press release from The Asylum and next thing you know, I'm listed as the director of a movie I've never even seen.   

But otherwise the Internetz are completely reliable.  For example, I bet none of you knew that at the age of six I directed a movie for the Beatles.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch

An Appraisal of the Environmental Friendliness of the Canyon To Which I Hold The Title

EDIT:  D'oh, Zarban the FastPoster beat me to it.  Move along.

The definition of a magic bean - and I coined the term so I'm calling dibs on it - is "something completely inexplicable or at least unexplained in the movie, that you must accept as real because it makes the story happen".

So, somehow the dead begin to walk the earth in search of human flesh?  Check.   Crazy dude builds a deLorean that somehow travels in time?  Righto.    Radioactive spider somehow gives a kid spider skillz?   Okay, I guess.  The bean in Abyss is "non-human creatures who can manipulate the laws of physics live at the bottom of the ocean".     Well, I haven't seen that on the Discovery Channel, and it sounds pretty unlikely, so... magic bean.

But "Larger than average asteroid is headed for earth?"   Not only is that not magical or inexplicable, it's not even weird.   The government is spending actual money right now to watch out for that.   (Not much money, but still.)  Totally real, part of our actual world.  Just a regular bean.   Same reason Die Hard isn't on the chart - the inciting event is unlikely, sure.  Improbable, even.  But not magical.

See:  Bean, Magic

I haven't seen that movie and have no opinion as to whether it's good or not.   But from what I know about it, I gather that's the central premise.   It's fine to just not buy that premise if it doesn't suit you, but if you're going in with that attitude there's not much reason to watch the movie in the first place.

It'd be the same as spending the last ninety minutes of Back To The Future saying "This movie sucks! Time travel isn't real!"   It's your business if you feel that way, but why waste the ninety minutes? 

Anyway, I'd remake I Am Legend.  In fact, I can remake I Am Legend right now - all I need to do is take the Special Feature original ending and put it back where it belongs, and take the theatrical release ending and bury it in a salt mine.

Yes and yes, but only because both Cordwainer Bird and Alan Smithee were official pseudonyms, sanctioned by the Writer's Guild and Director's Guild, respectively.

The Writer's Guild allows individual writers to choose their pseudonyms, whereas the DGA used to have a policy of any director who wanted his name off a movie to be credited as "Alan Smithee".    But the DGA doesn't do that any more, because it became public knowledge that Alan Smithee meant "the real director didn't want his name on this trainwreck".    I think - tho I'm not sure - the DGA now allows for individual pseudonyms the same as WGA.

But the use of pseudonyms only happens after a grievance process, writers or directors have to appeal to their union and show that the end result of their work is so compromised that they shouldn't have to be associated with it.   If their union agrees, the union backs them up and demands the producers use the pseudonym.   However, all residual rules still apply in either case.

For non-union projects, though, it's all about whatever contract you signed, and whether the producers even bother to honor it or not.    Without a union to back you up, you have no choice but to try legal action on your own, if you want to try going down that road.  And most likely by the time anything comes of the suit, the project's been in release for years already.  At least residuals aren't an issue here, because non-union projects don't pay residuals anyway.

Yeah, I watched this one as a direct result of Teague and another DIF-er (Michael maybe) Twitter-ing about it.   "Hmm, it's on Netflix Instant, might as well see what this is abou - "  BOOM.

Two things about it that especially struck me - first, the sorta-main character (who isn't Zachary, but it'll all make sense if you see it) was a guy just like a lot of us here - he made fan-films for pete's sake.    I related to the story on a very personal level that way.

The other thing - and I give the filmmaker credit for this, even though I can't say I ENJOYED it - is that even though it's a real-life story, the way the story gets told makes it a perfect example of the "surprising yet inevitable" conclusion.   I didn't see the ending coming at all, but then immediately realized that I should have.   And it was the same for the people who actually lived it, so the movie actually gives you a sense of what it was like for them.   

So in the end, DZ is just a filmmaker telling a very personal story because he simply had to get it out somehow.    You don't come away from it thinking "Yes, that's a messed-up thing and we need to do something about it!"  because there really isn't anything to be done in this case.    It's just a documentary in the purest sense of the word - a visual document, a record of a thing that happened.  But damn, that's all it needed to be.

Is it another of those "animal things"...?

There was talk of me appearing on this page, but unfortunately I am unable to appear because of a scheduling issue.

There were originally no plans to have a second page, but there was such a demand that we felt compelled to add one.

And the inverse is also true - a good story is created by its characters.  If  the story is just a series of events that happen to them, they'll be passive and uninteresting.   

Aliens looks like a pretty simple story on its surface - there are aliens who want to kill all the human characters and so... um, run?   The real story comes from  the characters interacting and conflicting with each other as they deal with the situation in their various ways. 

And even the "bad guy" has clear and understandable motivation - the Alien Queen wants to  protect her young the same way Ripley does.  So the hero and the villain have the same goal, and that's what puts them in conflict with each other, and makes the events of the story happen.   Story and character in Aliens, or any well-crafted movie, are usually inseparable.

Although I don't see why not.   That was the Batman I grew up with... and damn, all those other versions aren't funny at all.

Well, Schumacher's kinda came close.