SUNSET BOULEVARD MUSICAL REMAKE MOVIE NEWS

Take this with a grain of salt but rumblings of the movie is heating up again. Here is a post from imdb.com

Sam Mendes, Norman Jewison (along with a few others )held meetings with Sir Andrew Years ago. Andrew was interested in Sam Mendes at one time as the director but now would rather see Ron Howard in the directors chair. Can't blame Andrew there.

It should be known that Norman Jewsion declined as well as the original Musical director Trevor Nunn.

Because of certain rights of this very risky venture this movie will be produced by two studios Paramount (which owns the title and the original movie) and Universal Studios. This is not uncommon. Universal Music Group distributes all of the catalog music of Andrew Lloyd Webber's. Its sister company (Universal Studios)is interested in a joint production with Paramount. Ron Meyer who runs Universal would like to see this go into production soon.

Ron Howard has his production company (IMAGINE) happens to be located on the Universal Lot. The movie could be made soon but because of the cost, (and problems with casting)have stopped Norma from Returning to the Screen.

It is well known that Ron Howard loves BIG MOVIES WITH A HUGE CAST. He has been wanting to direct a musical for some time. He is a fan of the Broadway musical Sunset Blvd.

According to executives at the "Black Tower", "Paramount" insist that Barbra Streisand be cast as Norma. PARAMOUNT has said that Barbra Streisand is the only female star who could sell this movie. However casting Barbra is an issue with Universal & Ron Howard. Universal wants Meryl Streep. Ron Howard wants Glenn Close.

What stops Universal from wanting Barbra is the fact Barbra Streisand does very limited press for any project she is involved in. Universal had involvement with Barbra before. Universal did distribute "Meet The Fockers". Yes it was a DREAMWORKS film but in 2004 Universal did distribute Dreamworks movies which included "Meet the Fockers" which starred Barbra Streisand and she did almost no press. She refused to do the normal press junket.

Universal thinks "Sunset" is a movie that will need a ton of press outside the United States to become a hit. Most Major actors do the talk show rounds when their movies are released in the United States. Barbra Streisand doesn't do them hardly at all. In fact she has never been on Jay Leno or David Letterman. She most likely wouldn't do them to promote "Sunset Blvd.".

What also could be stalling the movie on the Universal Side is

*The original movie property itself is not well known by today's audience.
*The Broadway Musical closed over 10 years ago and there is no revival in sight.
*Nobody seems to want a revival.

What is known

*Casting Streisand to them is a huge mistake. Not because of her age but because her refusal of doing any type of press. In the case of press junkets Barbra has never done one and most likely never will. If cast she most likely only give 2 interviews if there lucky.

*If Glenn Close is cast she does do the talk show rounds and she is always a welcomed guest on all talk shows.

Paramount thinks "Meet The Fockers" was a huge international hit because of Streisand. "Paramount" does have final casting approval if they have any part on the financing of the movie.

Now what so funny is that PARAMOUNT GOT PATTI LUPONE PUSHED OUT OF THE BROADWAY RUN IN WHICH THEY MADE ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER FIRE PATTI LUPONE AND HIRE GLENN CLOSE. SO GLENN CLOSE WAS CAST FOR THE BROADWAY RUN.

Now Patti Lupone did get mixed reviews in London's West End Production however when the played opened in Los Angles a few months later with Glenn Close (that production was re-worked from the London Version) that production & Glenn got rave reviews. Patti Lupone was still selling out on the Original London Production however she was fired before the show came to Broadway. The Los Angles production ran 7 months. It closed and went on to Broadway and set a record for advance pre-sale tickets.

15 years later History is repeating itself with Paramount Pictures & "Sunset Blvd". NOW Glenn Close finds herself in Patti Lupones shoes. Paramount wants to push her out, and put in a bigger star.(Echos of Patti Lupone) Glenn Close only signed on to do the original Broadway Run (after her success in Los Angles) to begin with because she was promised she would get to play Norma in a movie version if one was ever made.

Ron Howard wants Glenn Close. He worked with her in "The Paper" and he loved her as Norma. He was there in Los Angles on opening night. Plus let's face it Glenn did win "A TONY" award for playing the role.

If Meryl Streep or Barbra Streisand is cast as Norma Ron Howard will not direct or have any involvement with the movie. Ron Howard has been wanting to direct this for years. It will be hard for him to walk away but he will.

Universal Studios(which would distribute the movie outside the United States) does favor Meryl because "THEY THINK" she has proven she can bring people to see a musical. Meryl Streep of course was in "MAMMA MIA". It is one of the biggest hits Universal has ever had. Its World Wide Box Office is over $550,000,000 million so you can't blame Universal for wanting Meryl Streep.

Christopher Hampton is re-working his book into a screenplay. He also wants to direct if Ron Howard declines. Christopher Hampton also wants to rework a few songs plus drop a couple as well. The biggest change is he wants to bring back from the workshop edition of "Sunset Blvd" the song "A Lasting Impression". It could be the whole song or just part of it. This would take the place of "The Lady's Paying" or might bookend that song. "A Lasting Impression" also brings Norma into the number doing Charlie Chaplin drag. One thing is for certain the song this time will take place inside the "Men's Clothing Store" as it did in the 1950 Original.

Casting a Joe Gillis without a Norma in place is a problem. Even if there is a Norma in place nobody has an idea on who to cast. However A BIG NAME is needed for this role. Hugh Jackman isn't interested! Someone that is Internationally known needs to be cast. Casting Betty isn't as hard. The part of Betty 2 names keep getting thrown around. They are Emmy Rossum & Amanda Seyfried. Emmy Rossum was in the "Phantom of the Opera Movie ", and Amanda Seyfried was in the "MAMMA MIA Movie".

People mentioned for MAX is Ben Kingsley, Daniel Benzali, and Anthony Hopkins.

The part of Cecil B. DeMille is rumored to go to none other than Albert Finney. However chances are whoever doesn't get to play Max out of Anthony, Ben, or Daniel one of them will most likely play Cecil B. DeMille.

If Ron Howard doesn't direct then "Gold Circle" (Tom Hanks Company)most likely will get involved and produce the movie in conjunction with Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios. However "GOLD CIRCLE" is also based on the Universal Lot. Tom Hanks is great friends with Ron Howard so he wants Ron Howard but again if no Glenn Close no Ron Howard. Keep in mind Gold Circle also produced "MAMMA MIA". Its more then likely that if Gold Circle produces the movie then Meryl Streep has the role.

Another problem is the cost of the movie. Paramount doesn't want to spend over $20,000,000. (They only want release rights for The United States) So Paramount will only invest that amount. Plus they want Streisand. Paramount will not sell off the USA FILM RIGHTS. They can't even if they wanted too. The Really Useful Group Still has an option to make the movie that doesn't expire until 2013 but they have to make it with cooperation of Paramount.

Paramount will RELEASE THE MOVIE if an outside production company steps in and finances the entire production if Streisand is not cast. Universal doesn't want to finance the movie on its own. If Andrew Lloyd Webber wants the movie to be made his company can produce the movie. Paramount will still have release rights for North America.

According to one producer A musical version of "SUNSET BLVD." will cost around $70,000,000 if not more. Because Paramount only wants to spend $20,000,000 on the movie Universal will have to pay $50,000,000. Universal will only match what Paramount is willing to spend & that's all!

Paramount has already invested in the original musical production and they are still barely out of the red from that! Paramount also would not see a dime from CD SALES Universal would.

If the movie is to be made at $70M the rest of the funding will have to come from another producer or a third party.

Paramount has told Andrew Lloyd Webber and REALLY USEFUL GROUP that if he wants a movie made now or in the very near future then he should "Produce the film himself". This is possible. Andrew Lloyd Webber's Company THE REALLY USEFUL GROUP financed the production of "The Phantom of the Opera". Warner Brothers only released the "Phantom" movie.

If THE REALLY USEFUL GROUP does produce the movie alone they will have 100% control over the entire production. They will not need casting approval from anyone. However after the box office disappointment of "Phantom of the Opera" its very unlikely that THE REALLY USEFUL GROUP will foot the entire production.

Paramount (Since the Sherry Lansing days) has always seen a VERY limited audience for "Sunset". So has Universal. Today at Paramount they think "MAMMA MIA" was a hit not because of "MERYL STREEP" but "the songs" in the movie were the stars. According to Paramount you didn't have to be a fan of the Broadway show to know the music & songs of "MAMMA MIA".

"Sunset Blvd." is a different animal. Outside of its small core of Broadway fans, the score is not well known. Paramount sees this as a huge problem. That is why they only want Streisand Cast as Norma. To them Barbra singing anything will get an audience. To quote Paramount "What good is a musical when most of the population can not name one song from the Broadway Show"? "Even the Original Movie is not that well known to anybody under 40". So they are sticking to their only choice of Streisand.

Paramount has stated before that "Sweeney Todd", "Phantom of the Opera", "The Producers", "Rent", & "Evita", that none of them were huge hits. That is why they are sticking to $20,000,000.

Its also not helping that Universal is still smarting over "The Producers"

So both studios want to keep the price down on the movie. IF the movie can be made for $40,000,000 it will get made soon.

I for one am waiting for Norma's Close up Mr DeMille.

POST ANYBODY HERE THAT IS ANTI GAY OUT THE HATERS

Name your enemy if someone you know is anti-gay. I rather it be NON FAMOUS.

I will add name to the list every 2-3 days. Please leave your name as well. Lets out the haters!!!


1) Margo Days (An Aunt) Oxnard CA
2) Jess Harper (My Nephew) Oxnard CA

GAY AND LESBIANS READ THIS.

The religous right is terrible. Here is a story from Newsweek I think everyone should read.

A Changing Tide
How India's actions on gay rights compare to the rest of the world.

Video: The Future of a Movement
Video: From Stonewall to Prop. 8
Video: Is Gay the New Black?

By Lisa Miller NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 6, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008

For feedback on this story, head to NEWSWEEK's Readback blog.
Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).
The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.

the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."

Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."
We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;You were very dear to me.Your love for me was wonderful,More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.

Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

Hurray for Jay Leno

I always thought that moving Jay Leno out and bringing in Conan was a huge mistake. Now both Jay and Conan can interview people however I hate Conan. Conan always comes across like he is nervous. He jumps on people answers (JAY LENO DOES AS WELL BUT NOT AS BAD).

Conan is dorky. He is not cool and funny. He still can not control an audience. He is a funny writer and I think he should return to the writers room.

Jay Leno will outshine Conan. There is no doubt. Jay will get the best guest first because lets face it he will have a bigger audience at 10pm then Conan will at 11:35.

In the long run I think NBC figured out the best way to retain an audience and that was by keeping Jay Leno. They must know Conan will not have an impact on the water cooler as much as Jay Leno did.

Now even if Jay Leno only brings in 8 Million viewers a night that is still better then what he was doing at 11:30 plus it will be better then what must shows do in that time slot on any network.

NBC however is taking a huge risk here by eliminating 10pm dramas they will not have shows on reserve if Jay Leno fails.

I do not however see Jay Leno failing. I will watch his show because I hate Conan and David Letterman is the same old shit he has been doing for years.

Jay Leno however will have to move up his musical guest from the last segment to the 3rd in order to reach the younger demographic. He will have to book more rappers on his show to reach younger demographics. This is a must for Jay. NBC wants younger viewers and Jay Leno's demographics better not skew older or both he and NBC will be in trouble.

I predict a huge things however with Jay at 10pm. He will save NBC/UNIVERSAL money and on top of that he may just save NBC broadcasting.