A Chat about Zach Braff and Kickstarter

Earlier in the day I had been complaining about the new project Zach Braff is trying to fund through Kickstarter (even though he previously had financial backing). I said that Braff is an asshole because of this, and Jeff (being the life-long fan he is) jumped in to defend the actor/writer/director. Hours later, I got a text from Jeff:

Jeff: Apparently Zach Braff put some of his own money into the Kickstarter. Apologize to him.

Joe: No.

Jeff: Yes! You were wrong.

Joe: He's a prick.

Jeff: You're such a hater. Did you even read the dang article?

Joe: No.

Jeff: He put his money and help from others so that way he had complete creative control without a studio telling him to change stuff.

Joe: He's a dickbag.

Jeff: You're a dickbag and you're wrong.

Joe: Real mature, Jeff. Are we adults? Are we?

Jeff: Well one of us is, the other is a giant man child who can't admit he's wrong. (I'm the man child).

Joe: So you do think Zach Braff is a prick.

Jeff: No, I don't think it's okay that he made a kickstarter when he could probably afford it, but I understand the sentiment.

Joe: Go to Videogum.com and read their article.

Jeff: This is a super biased article.

Joe: Because they state an opinion? Get over yourself, media!

Jeff: Hahah I thought journalists were supposed to report the facts without giving their own opinions.

Joe: Who said bloggers are journalists?

Jeff: Makes sense then.

Joe: And why shouldn't journalists speak their mind? It'd be a hell of a lot more refreshing than them burying their agendas. Just be honest.

Jeff: I don't think journalists should speak their minds because I think human beings are already stupid and if they listen to opinions of other's thinking it's then the "correct" opinion, and then people will be even more misinformed than they already are.

Joe: That's fair. But isn't that what's already happening? Look at Fox and CNN.

Jeff: I don't watch Fox due to their Republican agenda, don't watch CNN. I usually read USA Today and that's it. About Kickstarter, these celebrities are using Kickstarter and taking fan's money.

Joe: Oh, yeah. Veronica Mars has opened a Pandora's Box.

Jeff: I have a feeling it could become big name companies to use Kickstarter to be like, "HELP FUND THE NEW...ZOMBIES VS CHEETAHS FILM."

Joe: It's not good. Kickstarter was started so people like us could have potential financial backing. Not so successful entertainers can make dream projects.

Jeff: Yeah, I agree. It's understandable Zach Braff wants to maintain creative control, but it's not fair to expect his fans to help pay for a movie they are later going to pay to see.

Joe: Agreed. And really, how much more creative control can he get? After Garden State I have a hard time believing anyone would want to get in his way that much.

Jeff: You could talk about this with Mark and do a new JOE TALKS MOVIES update.

Joe: Haha. I don't think so. Maybe I'll just transcribe this and put it on the blog?

Jeff: And then talk about it ON AIR [TearJerker Podcast].

Joe: No way.

That's the discussion. Sorry it kind of meta towards the end there, but I thought I'd go ahead and plug the podcast I started doing with Mark. You can find it on iTunes and Podomatic, or find us on Facebook: Mark and Joe Tearjerkers.

What do you think about Zach "I'm a prick" Braff and Kickstarter?

Cool Trailer!: R.I.P.D

First, take a look at the trailer:

We can all agree that this looks exactly like Men in Black. Even if it's based on different source material (that I haven't read, so I'm not sure if that's the specific novel the movie is taking from), the movie looks just like the creature feature with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. But everyone liked Men in Black because it was new and different and fun!


Now, a big difference between MiB and R.I.P.D. is that the comedic force is coming primarily the mentor instead of the apprentice. I think this small change will be the key to a much funnier action/creature feature. On top of that, Bridges is basically just playing Rooster Cogburn from True Grit. He's an old cowboy and he's teaching the new guy the ropes in the most hilarious ways possible. Instead of getting hip jokes from a young guy, we're getting these ridiculous pieces of advice from a crazy old man.

Also: I realize it's a lazy joke, but I really loved that Bridges is a smoking hot girl and Reynolds is an old Asian man. It killed me.

What do you guys think?

Can We Talk About Evil Dead?

by Joe

The new Evil Dead movie is coming out in less than a week. I've heard things ranging from "Oh my god! I can't for that movie!" to "Oh my god! That movie looks fucking terrible!" I fall more into the camp of the former. A lot of my friends are on the other end of it, and at this point I feel like I need to defend the new movie.

Step One: What It's Doing

This movie is taking elements from the first two Evil Dead movies (I'm basing this entirely off the trailers I've seen. I generally avoid looking too far into movies until I've seen them first). We've got tree raping, cutting possessed hands off, beheading of a woman, the cabin (the fucking cabin! We've seen this thing all over the place. See: The Cabin in the Woods), demons in the cellar, and the skin-bound book that awakens evil. That's quite the list of goodies.

What we do not have: Ash.

This is a big letdown for people because Bruce Campbell carries the original movies along. We have the low budget effects and the paper thin story, but then we add the Chin and we've got ourselves a goddamn movie! He is iconic with his boomstick, chainsaw arm, and spot-on one liners. This is the kind of perfection that you don't want to mess with. Pyscho is a prime example of a bar set too high. The original movie is a masterpiece, while the Van Sant's remake is a trainwreck. The producers of the new Evil Dead (Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. What?! Oh, would you look at that!) knew that Ash was something too holy to recreate on screen, so they've taken the smarter path of avoidance. There is a new protagonist and a new set of characters. Maybe we'll see more depth in the supporting players (whereas we saw nothing from them in the past), and that can only help the movie. Having fully rounded characters will only elevate the movie as a whole, making it better and scarier.

Not putting Ash in: Great idea. Good job, producers.

So they've made an Evil Dead movie without a big part of the originals. But based on the trailers, they've still been able to harness that element of gore and grittiness. We're still going into the theatre and we're going to see trees getting frisky, blood pouring out of walls, and demons shouting from the basement. People will say that it is missing that slap-stick comedy from the second movie (I'm the one saying this), but you need to look past number two and go back to the first one. The first one is missing those comedic elements, too. I think we can all agree that Evil Dead isn't really that scary of a movie. There are some creepy demon elements, but overall it's a hokey, low budget, gore flick (and I love it, don't get me wrong). Raimi was doing his best to make a fucking scary movie, but it just wasn't quite there. The new Evil Dead is almost like his second shot at making a truly scary movie, and not just a starting point for Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness.

Step Two: What It's Going to Do

Army of Darkness II !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even if Evil Dead sucks and I'm left depressed and let down, it will all be worth it to see Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi back in the throes of deadites. I haven't read that there is any correlation between the new Evil Dead and Army of Darkness II, but come on--they announced that Raimi will start writing it right before Evil Dead premiered at SXSW. The timing is too perfect. If anything, this flick is bringing a new generation on board for the franchise. And because of this we'll get to see a lot more.

Check out the trailer for the new movie: