Our friends over at GeeksOfDoom.com posted an article that caught our eye.
"Fanboys," a film starring Sam Huntington, Kirsten Bell, Dan Fogler (I promise I won't say anything opinionated), Jay Baruchel, and Chris Marquette, seemed like a film that would be really damn good, and one that all "Star Wars" geeks would love. The plot was originally five friends take their friend that is dying of cancer to break into the Skywalker Ranch to see an advanced copy of "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace." It was directed by Kyle Newman and was supposed to be released on August 17 of 2007.
Apparently the money-schieving bastards over at Disney didn't think that the original cut wasn't good, so they kept pushing it back. It was supposedly to be kept getting pushed back to add in "Star Wars" sound and special effects.
But the real reason? The Weinstein cocksuckers paid Steve Brill, director of "Without a Paddle," "Little Nicky," and writer of the "Mighty Ducks" films, two million dollars for some reshots. So what did he do? He reshot almost the entire movie. Now in order to be credited, Brill would have to shoot more than fifty percent of the film. One of the main changes were that the friend wouldn't be dying - they would just be "Star Wars" geeks that want to see the film before it came out.
Positive test-screenings of the original cut don't matter. Even Lucas' approval of the original cut didn't mean anything. Some "Star Wars" geek is infuriated by results of the recut, created a group called "Stop the Darth Weinstein," and plan to rebel against the Weinsteins.
So if the second cut of "Fanboys" gets released in theaters and bombed, Harvey Weinstein claimed that in order to get that money back, he would:
1. Release a THIRD version released in theaters directed by George Lucas with a totally different ending - the trip would be a waste of time and "The Phantom Menace" would suck anyway.
2. More Jar-Jar Binks action figures = $$$
3. Divide the film into two films, release them on DVD a month apart with extended versions and a disc filled with special features.
I wouldn't be surprised by any of the three (of course, that little section was only me acting like a dick, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually happened).
Stop the Darth Weinstein on MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/stopdarthweinstein
Stop the Darth Weinstein on Beam.to - http://committed.to/stopdarthweinstein
Stop the Darth Weinstein on Seeya.at - http://www.seeya.at/stopdarthweinstein
UPDATE!!!
This came from Cinematical:
"Thanks to a well-placed, super delegate secret spy source, Cinematical was able to get the real skinny on what was going on with Fanboys. Some of this info is new, some old, but I have confirmed all of it to be true. First off, Kyle Newman definitely was replaced as director for the re-shoots by Steve Brill (Without a Paddle). The "dying of cancer" storyline was completely dumped, and, instead, the fanboys are now trying to sneak a copy of Phantom Menace simply because they're fans and want to see it. According to my source, the story is now "disjointed, nonsensical and lacking any heart."
Oh, there's more ...
Here's where it gets messy: Apparently, both versions were screened for test audiences -- and the new version only tested two points higher than the old version. My super delegate source also claims plants may have been in the audience -- there to pursuade moviegoers to vote against the original version -- but this has not been proven. In two days, after the old version was screened, Brill re-cut the film and they tested it again -- this time it was tighter, dirtier and contained nudity, lots of F-bombs, the whole works. And even with all that, it still only tested two points higher than the old version. But since Weinstein had to justify the fact that they spent an extra $2 million on the re-shoots, they went with the newer, flashier, Without a Paddle-esque version of Fanboys.
This new version, I've been told, is funny, but nowhere close to what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be for fans who grew up with Star Wars -- it was supposed to be a love letter to George Lucas -- and now it's, well, Without a Paddle 2. The real problem here, I feel, is not so much the fact that the movie was re-shot and re-cut, but that the studio may have been using plants in a test audience to try to get moviegoers to sway their opinion. What the f*ck is the purpose of a test audience then?"
ALSO!!!: The director of "Mr. Deeds 2" (WHOOPS! I mean "Fanboys: Second Cut") sent this to the StDW guys (and yes, that IS his real e-mail address, so I'll be sending out emails to him, and I'm hoping you do too.)
To: stopdarthweinstein@yahoo.com
From: "Steven Brill" <frankhuddy@aol.com>
Subject: None
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:14:17 -0800
I can hook you up with the facts on this one.My only advice is don't judge something til you have seen it. Have you seen the cancer version of this movie? I have. It is unreleaseable. It would be irresponsible to release it. The cancer is used as a convenient subplot and is actually offensive to anybody who knows anything about or has gone through cancer. Trust me. You are fighting for something that you would not be proud of. Cancer is trivialized, marginalized and reduced to the worst kind of contrivance. That is what you are fighting to see. And you will see it. At least on the dvd. And you will cringe at the bad, manipulative melodrama that goes against the true spirit of the piece. The non cancer version is true, joyful and and in no way
condescending to star wars fans. But again. You should see it. And perhaps you will. If you stop ranting about things you have not seen. You honestly remind me of the religious right condemning movies and books they haven't seen or read, and have only been fed inflammatory facts about....usually from people with an agenda. Your precious Star Wars homage movie has been made, and has been preserved......you will see. And then you should apologize to Darth Weinstein......yr pal,GL
I'm not one to correct... but this was the guy who directed "Fanboys?" Christ this guy can't even spell "your" right.
>>I can hook you up with the facts on this one. My only advice is
don't judge something til you have seen it.
Hey! Genius! We
say right on our page that we HAVE SEEN the original cut! We've got a whole page of
reviews by fans who saw it at LA test screenings and at Celebration Europe.
We were among the people who gave it THREE STANDING
OVATIONS, douchebag! (Do you really think your no-cancer cut will ever
get a standing ovation? From anyone???)
>>Have you seen the
cancer version of this movie? I have. It is unreleaseable. It would be
irresponsible to release it.
This coming from the guy who wrote
and directed Little Nicky, Mr. Deeds, and other crimes against
humanity.
>>The cancer is used as a convenient subplot and
is actually offensive to anybody who knows anything about or has gone through
cancer.
Really? According to this article
and this
one, the writer of Fanboys, Ernest Cline, wrote the movie the year after his
own mother died of cancer.
>>Trust me. You are fighting
for something that you would not be proud of. Cancer is trivialized,
marginalized and reduced to the worst kind of contrivance. That is what you are
fighting to see. And you will see it. At least on the dvd.
Oh
really? Have you and Darth Weinstein discussed this? Do you plan to release your
bastardized recut first, and then try and leech money off real Star Wars fans by
releasing an Original Cut DVD several months later?
Guess what? That
won't appease us! If the Original Cut isn't the one released in theaters, our
boycott of the Weinstein Company will continue until it is! (And we'll boycott
your upcoming crapfest Drillbit Taylor, too. Which will be easy, because we
already hear that it
sucks.)
>>And you will cringe at the bad, manipulative
melodrama that goes against the true spirit of the piece. The non cancer version
is true, joyful and and in no way condescending to star wars
fans.
Listen, asshat. Changing the entire plot of the movie so
that the Star Wars fans break in to Skywalker Ranch just because they're "dorks"
is BEYOND condescending. It is insulting to Star Wars fans everywhere. If you
WERE ACTUALLY A STAR WARS FAN, you'd understand that, Grand Moff Brill-o-Head!
And besides, we're not particularly interested in what the tool who wrote Little
Nicky thinks is "true" or "joyful."
And what would a hack brought
in to recut a movie against the wishes of the people who made it know
about "the true spirit of the piece?!!!"
>>But again. You
should see it. And perhaps you will.
Um... No we won't. Perhaps
you didn't notice, but we're running an entire internet campaign to boycott your
no-plot version, genius! We don't EVER WANT TO SEE IT! NO ONE
DOES!
>>If you stop ranting about things you have not seen.
You honestly remind me of the religious right condemning movies and books they
haven't seen or read, and have only been fed inflammatory facts about....usually
from people with an agenda.
Hmm. Is it possible that YOU HAVE
AN AGENDA, Grand Moff Brill-o-Head?! Since you're the one getting paid by Darth
Weinstein to RUIN THE MOVIE? Perhaps you should look up the word hypocrite in the
dictionary!
And, in addition to Star Wars fans, it sounds like you hate
Christians, too. I'd really love to read some of the emails you're going to be
getting this weekend.
>>Your precious Star Wars homage
movie has been made, and has been preserved......you will see. And then you
should apologize to Darth Weinstein......
Yeah, I don't really
see that happening. Why would we apologize to Darth Weinstein for handing over
our "precious Star Wars homage movie" to someone who clearly hates Star Wars
fans???I can't wait to see how Lord Weinstein reacts when he finds out you've
been bashing the fans on the internet. This should be fun to watch. Have a great
weekend!
Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to go alert every movie news
website in the world about this post.
May the Force Be With
You (and
God Bless),
Jek Porkins
and the Stop Darth Weinstein
Squadron
2.22.2008
BALLS!
Mr. Porkins, FilmArcade.net is happy to be a part of that "Fanboys" boycott. We will bring more when we hear about it.
0 comments
Post a Comment