MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Most Hijacked "Exclusive" Private Video Of The Day?

It’s funny enough to look at…
Ben Stiller, Stuart Cornfeld, and Jeremy Kramer are talking their Red Hour production company to Fox, heading out of cash-tight DreamWorks on the heels of the pricey Tropic Thunder. This piece was clearly produced for some in-house event, as it is so inside baseball that even a ShoWest audiences wouldn’t get half the references.
Movieline claimed the exclusive, but also claimed that it was not necessarily meant to be public, so they exclusively found it, I guess?
The only thing remotely controversial here is the question of who actually footed the bill for this wank, which surely didn’t cost $800k, as joked about in the clip, but probably cost at least $150k… without clearances from Quincy Jones or anyone else.

21 Responses to “The Most Hijacked "Exclusive" Private Video Of The Day?”

  1. Hopscotch says:

    That’d be Hank Azaria narrating.

  2. Nicol D says:

    Great stuff. My first job ot of film school was producing corporate videos and I have to say, he has nailed a certain tone. Although I could have only dreamed of this sort of budget.
    I know many people are saying this was meant to trash FOX…I don’t think so. When I was doing corporate, this sort of humour which takes the piss out of the top guys was expected and enjoyed in a Friar’s Club sort of way. Most of the time they would play along in staged set pieces shown at quarterly sales meetings etc.
    I never used to like Stiller but I have to say, something clicked in me a few years back when I saw Starsky and Hutch and now I love most that he does. He is one of the few Hollywood comedians who does not cow-tow to political correctness.
    This is funny stuff.

  3. christian says:

    This is hardly a trash. And 150k? Not likely.
    I think Trey and Matt did it better first:

  4. leahnz says:

    sweet clip, christian
    and just in case there is any lingering confusion whatsoever:
    (either for real or in his head, and apparently run by a bunch of pinko commies, but there you have it)
    again, in case anybody is not crystal clear:
    there, nicol, now you never have to mention having gone to film school again!

  5. anghus says:

    christ i hope not. if so, it shows you why productions are getting the fuck out of L.A.

  6. NickF says:

    That’s some funny stuff.

  7. David Poland says:

    It’s what it ends up costing if you are paying people who get paid well in other circumstances to do the work. Adds up quick. It certainly could be done on favors for very little. But my guess is that it is not. $150k for 4 minutes is not actually a lot for the well=paid pro version… and locations and studio space were not the expense.

  8. Nicol D says:

    By the way, your bitter, snarky, facile posts remind me of people I used to encounter…when I was in film school.

  9. leahnz says:

    oh nicol, how could i ever hope to foot it with such a devilishly clever, free-wheeling raconteur film-school-grad such as yourself? (and i must admit i’m rather disappointed in you, having left out such gems as ‘sarcastic’, ‘twisted’, ‘seething, and ‘potty-mouthed’)
    never mind, i have a new tack:
    every time you sneak ‘film school’ into your posts, which is most of them (and you never met anybody like me at your posh ‘film school’, sport; i never went, thank christ, having cut my teeth as a theatre-rat before moving on to the moving pictures), i’ll take a shot of mezcal, like a little ‘hot blog’ drinking game, and maybe that way you’ll seem less of a predictable, tedious bore. shit, that might actually work

  10. Martin S says:

    Exactly right, Anghus.
    Two basic sets, one I think I’ve seen in a commercial, and neither could have taken longer than an afternoon to prep and shoot. All of the VFX can be done in Adobe by one experienced person in under two weeks. If this cost over 100K, then Stiller wanted to pay that.

  11. The Big Perm says:

    That’s pretty awesome that Nicol became a huge fan of Ben Stiller after enjoying one of his most mediocre films.
    But he’s not politically correct so yaaaay!!!!
    I hate commies!

  12. christian says:

    I do love it when Stiller does his faux-motivational speaker thing. I miss his old show.

  13. winston smith says:

    david, if you really think that cost $150k, you have forever made your fiscal analyses totally suspect. what could possibly make you think that cost that much? in what alternate universe? you know they make computers that fit on a desktop these days and can do all sorts of neat tricks. and, um, i don’t think it was a union shoot with location costs.

  14. winston smith says:

    david, if you really think that cost $150k, you have forever made your fiscal analyses totally suspect. what could possibly make you think that cost that much? in what alternate universe? you know they make computers that fit on a desktop these days and can do all sorts of neat tricks. and, um, i don’t think it was a union shoot with location costs.

  15. David Poland says:

    Winston… no one is saying it’s technologically expensive. I can do all those effects on my very own computer… most of them on my laptop.
    Have you ever budgeted people? Do you know what is spent by studios for what should be cheap pieces? Do you know how Stiller spends on everything? Do you know how much his hair costs for a half-day?
    I love you guys and I know you could all do this with your pals in your homes in 4 days for $127. I’m not being facetious. As someone said, roughly, spending on something like this is what the person making it wants it to be. Part of that is who they want making it… how quickly they want it made… etc.
    I hate to pull out the trump card, but when I was a child, I budgeted shorts for a few different shows on two different networks. I’m not flying blind here. And I am not being dazzled by expensive effects and some fantasy about what they cost.
    If Mr. Stiller wanted to do this on the cheap and use up favors, he surely could. And the hard cost would be $0. If he wanted to make 4 minutes of something at studio retail, $150k is NOTHING. That’s less than $4 million below the line for a full feature. And since it is a business write-off, it is a chance for him to throw some money at friends for their day rates and have fun at Fox’s expense.
    Do you think Ben’s wife shot it with their home video camera and Ben stayed up all night with his Mac Book Pro?
    Maybe you’re right.
    But that is not my experience of how people used to big budgets do their funny little comedy bits these days. Funny or Die does it cheaper, for sure, but you would probably be surprised how much those segments cost to produce.
    What you CAN do and people who have all the freedom in the world DO do are two quite different things.
    Again… maybe you are dead right. Maybe it was done on the cuff. But probably not.
    And now we can talk about what it costs to have 4 actors show up for a panel at Comic-Con…

  16. jeffmcm says:

    “when I was a child, I budgeted shorts for a few different shows on two different networks.”
    Walking uphill both ways.

  17. David Poland says:

    J-Mc… what do you want from my life?
    I was 20. I worked on SNL and Letterman doing short films. (Letterman did a celebrity shorts special for two years before giving up on it.) I worked for Fox on a daytime show in the year the network launched. Very different budgets. Very different circumstances. I also produced a season of a music video series and did celebrity interstitials for it that were cheaper than either show.
    But I was 20 (and later, 21)… I’m 44 now. I was a child. And have had a few lives between then and now. Did my linguistic flourish upset you? Do you have anything to add other than to make a constant issue of me?
    You know, I am just trying to make myself clear here. $150k is a LOT of money for a short in the real world. And in the land of studio promotion, especially for a deal that means a likely total investment of over a billion by the studio, it is a drop in the bucket.
    I don’t know what Stiller spent on the thing. But if he did it on favors or on the cheap and didn’t send Fox a bill for it – it looks like it was made for one of their internal events – his “people” would be calling him a sucker for letting the studio get away with using him for free. That is how things roll out here.
    Some in here can tell you how useful $150km would be in the preservation of some great old films that should be taken better care of… and at the same time, can probably tell you how many times they have watched studios piss away more than that on worthless goofs.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    DP, I just don’t know why you waste your time on studio politics and journalistic excesses when the pressing issues of world peace, cold fusion, and global climate change seem to be better uses for your unlimited, manifold skills.

  19. LexG says:

    Note to readers:
    Check the timestamps (just after 2am!) and it’s a safe bet that McDouche is drunk as fuck.
    Not as drunk as me, but I can HANDLE my shit.

  20. LexG says:

    Jeff, drink tally?
    My guess? You had 1/2 a highball and a sip of Bartles and Jaymes then entered an entire other dimension via your psychedelic buzz.

  21. The Big Perm says:

    Well, when you’re an alchoholic you have a higher tolerance, so let’s not be too hard on ol’ Jeff.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“What Quibi trying to do is get to the next generation of film narrative. The first generation was movies, and they were principally two-hour stories that were designed to be watched in a single sitting in a movie theater [ED: After formats like the nickelodeon]. The next generation of film narrative was television, principally designed to be watched in one-hour chapters in front of a television set. I believe the third generation of film narrative will be a merging of those two ideas, which is to tell two-hour stories in chapters that are seven to ten minutes in length. We are actually doing long-form in bite-size.”
~ Jeffrey Katzenberg

“The important thing is: what makes the audience interested in it? Of course, I don’t take on any roles that don’t interest me, or where I can’t find anything for myself in it. But I don’t like talking about that. If you go into a restaurant and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I were to I speak about the background of my work. My explanations would come into conflict with the reason a movie is made in the first place — for the experience of the audience — and that, I would not want.
~  Christoph Waltz