The King of the Geezer Teasers

April 1, 2021 5:14 PM

Continuing tonight's theme of retro at the movies....The King of the Geezer Teasers: Inside Randall Emmett’s direct-to-video empire, where many Hollywood stars have found lucrative early retirement (Joshua Hunt, Vulture). Starring: Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, and Steven Seagal's advisory committee.

"There’s a crude, blunt brilliance to Emmett’s filmmaking formula: Accept money from just about anyone willing to hand it over, offer vast sums of it to an aging star for a day or two of work, then leverage that actor’s name to presell the movie in foreign markets. Along the way, forgo union writers and directors whenever possible, keep shooting days to a minimum, and film on location in places like Puerto Rico, where the local government offers filmmakers tax credits that can be sold on the open market for 90 cents on the dollar. Ugliness, after all, is excusable in Hollywood."

posted by MonkeyToes (34 comments total)

This . . . explains a LOT . . .

These flicks are all over the various streaming services, so of course I've spent a lot of the last year going, "What the hell movie is this?"

Now I know.
posted by soundguy99 at 5:51 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]

So, basically, the two production paradigms that now exist in Hollywood seem to be either Jerry Bruckheimer or Roger Corman.
posted by Omon Ra at 6:04 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]

I love how Willis even looks bored on the posters.
posted by octothorpe at 6:05 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]

For those old enough to remember his early days in Hollywood, Emmett is still Mark Wahlberg’s former personal assistant, the hard-partying hanger-on who helped inspire the character Turtle on HBO’s Entourage.

Oh dear god.
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:12 PM on April 1, 2021 [3 favorites]

In general, this seems a lot like the technique of Herr Doktor Doktor Uwe Boll, except that Emmett seems to have made the sensible economy of not buying the rights to a video game first.

In all seriousness, though, this is a very basic but brilliant strategy: presell foreign rights, ideally covering 100% of your production costs (the Cannon/Globus method), shoot in polities with generous tax policies (Uwe Boll's entire first film career was financed by tax shelters), hang your entire marketing strategy on aging stars' aging built-in fanbases (this works not only for movies, but also for record labels)

The movies are shit, but the finance is brilliant.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 6:28 PM on April 1, 2021 [9 favorites]

DeNiro's face on the poster for Heist... it's like he's both ashamed of himself for being in the movie, and ashamed of the audience for watching him.
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:45 PM on April 1, 2021 [2 favorites]

This must be how the world got Breach, a movie we were briefly victims of the other night. It looked so cheap and dull, like a Rifftrax movie, which it might be someday. We finally had to turn it off because the sound was so bad that we could not understand the mumbly, shouty dialogue, not that we wanted to at that point. We were wondering if Bruce Willis was okay.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:10 PM on April 1, 2021 [4 favorites]

The movies are shit, but the finance is brilliant.

this sounds like the sort of perfectly awful alchemy the Canadian film biz (aided and abetted by Telefilm Canada's govt money and oversight) was aiming for back when I was working a more or less opposite trajectory (and failing).

Long story short, I guess I figured out other ways to make money, stay sane, stay alive because here I am talking about it. Meanwhile, the Canadian film biz, for all their efforts, managed to achieve mostly shitty movies and shitty revenues. And shit is the word. That's what money is in the end. Throw enough of it at something and it's a sure thing, you'll get a lot of flies. And say what you will of flies and their necessary place in the ecosystem, they make shitty movies.
posted by philip-random at 7:41 PM on April 1, 2021 [2 favorites]

A lot of times, when the subject of shitty movies and the people who make them comes up, I keep thinking of Bowfinger, the Steve Martin movie where he plays the shambolic king of the lowball movie makers, and I wonder if Martin actually toned down the reality of that level of the film business.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:12 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]

So it’s kind of an Ed Wood/Béla Lugosi thing. But with (and yes, I am actually saying this; these words are being typed by my fingers, as unlikely as that seems even to me) even less of an artistic vision.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:27 PM on April 1, 2021 [7 favorites]

This is the kind of product you get with outdated subsidy programs designed to boost employment with no regard for the end result. All people build is a vacuum for dodgy money -- either government funds that should instead be helping the people, or grey (or black) money from disreputable sources trying to legitimize themselves. Plus vanity projects.

This article was a hard read. It was fascinating in much the same way as reading about NFTs; Sure there's some creativity there, but all we're mostly doing is burning the planet down.

While every Big Flower Fight makes me want to keep Netflix, every Cosmic Sin (4% on RT) makes me want a world where it was never thought up.
posted by krisjohn at 8:34 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]

": Accept money from just about anyone willing to hand it over, offer vast sums of it to an aging star for a day or two of work, then leverage that actor’s name to presell the movie in foreign markets."

The thing I don't understand about this is, people in foreign markets aren't idiots.
So why would Bruce Willis on the cover necessarily sell more than the same schlock without Bruce Willis on the cover?
They know as well as we do that the Famous Name is just phoning it in, so that can't be the only reason they are popular.

Maybe they just like crap movies.
posted by madajb at 9:18 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]

This is the kind of product you get with outdated subsidy programs designed to boost employment with no regard for the end result. All people build is a vacuum for dodgy money --

Telefilm Canada in a nutshell ... except for when they very occasionally got it right and allowed good movies to get made with their financial (and other) assistance. I'm cynical enough to believe that the good movies were complete accidents and there were secret meetings afterword where they (Telefilm) discussed how to make sure such things would never happen again.
posted by philip-random at 9:22 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]

Heh, I've seen a bunch of these mostly because of the exactly this, the old star having a bit role to sell units through name association. I didn't realize there was a cottage industry around this, I just like seeing how former big-name stars get bit-roles in schlubby films. They always get top-billing but they're hardly in it. The rest of the cast are always a bunch of twerps who can't carry a film, yet they're the actual main cast.

My favorite of this genre in the last few years was actually Money Plane with Kelsey Grammer and Denise Richards. To be fair, Grammer is actually in it a fair bit (he's the villain) but Richards is blink and you miss her.

However, I've enjoyed a lot of Steven Seagal's recent stuff where he does what I like to call "sitting down martial arts," where he somehow manages to do a whole scene sitting down but it will involve a lot of pseudo-fighting movement.

Nicolas Cage is like an aberration to this, where he gets relatively big roles in crap movies constantly (Willy's Wonderland springs to mind), but he also does the more of bit-role-to-increase-sales (Jiu Jitsu).

Yes, I like crap movies.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:43 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]

I'm convinced this a deliberate strategy by aging actors to undermine any future hologram "work" by their digitized likeness. Poisoning the well.
posted by srboisvert at 3:58 AM on April 2, 2021 [3 favorites]

Sadly, John Cusack does a lot of these.
posted by octothorpe at 4:03 AM on April 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

I also really enjoyed the phrase "Mockbuster". There are so many of these movies on Amazon Prime it feels like they are specializing in them (along with "documentaries" that will make you dumber and more ignorant if you watch them).
posted by srboisvert at 4:54 AM on April 2, 2021 [7 favorites]

madajb: “The thing I don't understand about this is, people in foreign markets aren't idiots.”

I wondered if maybe dubbing improves the movies by substituting voice acting for the lackluster performances of the film actors?
posted by ob1quixote at 5:48 AM on April 2, 2021

"GUN"

This poster is amazing, just the purified, refined essence of the genre. It's perfect.
posted by mhoye at 6:16 AM on April 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

The thing I don't understand about this is, people in foreign markets aren't idiots. So why would Bruce Willis on the cover necessarily sell more than the same schlock without Bruce Willis on the cover?

They are not idiots. It's just that many people who watch movies know very little about movies and don't care, just like most people know very little about refrigerators, even though they're more vital than movies. They can't tell schlock from non-schlock, original stuff from derivative stuff, etc. These people have little knowledge about Bruce Willis' career, except that he's the "Yippee-Ki-Yay, Motherfucker" guy, and this is going to be truer for foreign markets, due to their lower exposure to Bruce Willis over the years. And there's nothing wrong with that. So when looking at action movie posters with explosions and guns on it, the schlock with Bruce Willis will get picked up over the schlock with Peter Whatshisname. Let's remember that there was an actor named Bruce Le.
posted by elgilito at 6:20 AM on April 2, 2021 [2 favorites]

The thing I don't understand about this is, people in foreign markets aren't idiots.

I think the "foreign markets" are operating on the same principles - it's not like these flicks are necessarily actually blockbusters in countries besides the US (or are even expected to be), but other countries have got hours to fill with content too, whether it's streaming services, or TV, or butts in theater seats. So as long as the rights are cheap enough having a "Bruce Willis movie" will add just enough "value" that the distributors can sell it to theater chains and broadcasters for a moderate profit, and the theaters and broadcasters have a "Bruce Willis movie" to show at midnight.

IOW, everyone down the line knows it's essentially bogus, they're just hoping that having a "star" in the flick gets enough bored or curious people to check it out that they can squeak a small profit out of the thing.

And I don't know if it's true in places besides the US, but at least here a ton of movies make most of their dough opening weekend. So at least theoretically you're not looking at "foreign" audiences being dumb so much as that if the theater can use Sylvester Stallone on the poster to fill the place the first weekend it's out, well, who cares if the movie sucks and everyone tells their friends, "Don't bother", they've made their money.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:25 AM on April 2, 2021

I want to slag these actors, but I'm also hoping to one day augment my retirement with well-paid "consulting" gigs in which I would be overpaid for short jobs leveraging my resumé to legitimatize someone else's work.

So white collar office/biz-world folks do this too, I guess.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:05 AM on April 2, 2021 [3 favorites]

So, given all the la di da here on the Blue about AI, how come no one has brought up the option of just cranking these things out via neural networks, CGI face mapping, etc? I have a feeling that the screenplays are just unintentional Markov chains of each other. Oh, what? Creating these movies that way would be much more expensive? Doing it this way is far cheaper? Hooray, for just letting the humans do it!
posted by njohnson23 at 9:02 AM on April 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

In the first Expendables film, Willis shares a brief scene with Stallone and Arnold, and I'm pretty sure CGI was used to put them all in the same room together. I guess they charge extra to share the same air.
posted by Beholder at 9:25 AM on April 2, 2021 [1 favorite]

ivan ivanych samovar has it above I think. It is a pretty solid financing strategy that's been used since at least the 60s, especially in international markets. And yes artistic quality of the production is almost never considered - as long as it is competent and meets minimal production criteria it is saleable. Asylum's Mockbusters followed the Cannon model essentially but they are not alone - presell the film, keep the budget under 1 million, ride the shirt tails of the marketing for a bigger film, get a star that people vaguely remember and you have a film. Blumhouse is more successful, the movies more consistent and less cheap but they are not far off from that model (perhaps more akin to Corman who's productions generally were more consistent). In terms of international audiences, it is also important to remember that these films are often dubbed into the local languages which can cover many of the weaknesses in the acting, even from formerly big stars. Also worth noting is a lot of these name actors often only work a few days on films like these - I remember reading that Bruce Willis in particular often only works 2 or 3 days at most on some of the films he's advertised being in.

Telefilm Canada in a nutshell

Not exactly. Telefilm is a crown corporation, which started its life as the Canadian Film Development Corporation, which manages the Canadian Media Fund and other subsidy programmes. Their focus is to primarily promote Canadian film, film production in Canada and co-productions (46 co-productions last year with Canada getting a revenue share of 137 mil. - that's a lot of jobs). Generally speaking they aren't really supposed to be gatekeepers though like any crown corporations in Canada they are often subject to the wills of the political powers that be, prone to patronage appointments, cronyism and tend to function like a big stick. So sometimes they can be motivated in different directions that are less than ideal for creatives. In my opinion, as someone works in the industry, the issue of quality & availability is less an issue of Telefilm and more an issue at the executive producer level - I have had many producers sit on projects simply because they felt there was no market in Canada for Canadian productions (but that's a whole other story). This particular discussion in the post is more akin to the Canadian Tax Shelter years (previously) which leaned heavily on cheaply produced genre films with a known US star.

Let's remember that there was an actor named Bruce Le.

And Bruce Chen, Bruce Lai, Bruce Le, Bruce Lie, Bruce Liang, Saro Lee, Bruce Ly , Bruce Thai, Brute Lee, Myron Bruce Lee, Lee Bruce, and Dragon Lee and even Jackie Chan at one point... It's a whole subgenre.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:28 AM on April 2, 2021 [5 favorites]

Ah, dammit, I was just coming in to talk about the Brucesploitation years, and you beat me to it.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 2:38 PM on April 2, 2021

Unless these actors are in serious debt, which I doubt people like De Niro and Willis are, I just don't understand flushing your legacy down the toilet by appearing in these shit movies just for another couple million bucks, when you've already got more cash than your grandchildren will ever be able to spend.
posted by Liquidwolf at 5:23 PM on April 2, 2021

Some actors just like to always be working, even if it's not in projects that bring them great artistic satisfaction.

Also, when your work is all freelance projects, it can be hard to get out of the mindset you develop early in your career, that you need to take whatever you can before the day comes when the offers stop coming altogther.

There can also be the desire to use the money that's above and beyond what you can use personally, to support nonprofits, charitable work, passion projects you can't get other financing for, etc.

(Also, I wouldn't be too quick to make assumptions about lack of debt.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:19 AM on April 3, 2021 [3 favorites]

The thing I don't understand about this is, people in foreign markets aren't idiots.

I don't think they are necessarily idiots but they (and we) can be naïve to foreign movie's domestic nuances and see the films completely differently and appreciate them for completely different reasons from their domestic audiences. Kind of like the way some western people like wearing t-shirts with Asian writing on them for aesthetic reasons without ever knowing what the shirt means. "It just looks cool". To us these aging movie stars are well past their best before date but maybe in another culture their perceived mastery of the form is respected even once it is in steep decline. Maybe they just like the clothing, scenery, genre or the idiomatic acting. Maybe there is something satisfying in the awfulness of the movies. Maybe when your customer base is 6+ billion people you will find an audience of millions no matter what.
posted by srboisvert at 7:50 AM on April 3, 2021 [3 favorites]

I can’t believe that either Steven Seagal or Bruce Willis can need the money. Surely they are resting on piles of cash from their Spotify streaming income?

Although, in fairness, it seems like Bruce was actually singing slightly before he became famous with The Return of Bruno, Steven made one in 2017! “And an artist“, apparently from the quote,

Any Great Warrior
Is Also
A Scholar,
And A Poet,
And An Artist

the source of which I have been avoiding looking up, because I am secretly hoping he is quoting himself.

I found both of these by chance last week, and have been waiting for an excuse to tell someone!
posted by fizban at 12:14 AM on April 4, 2021 [2 favorites]

"the source of which I have been avoiding looking up, because I am secretly hoping he is quoting himself."

Looks like your hopes have come true, looks like he is indeed quoting himself, because dumping that phrase into Google only comes up with quote pages for Steven Seagal.
posted by deadaluspark at 9:29 AM on April 4, 2021 [1 favorite]

Growing up in the US, the word "geezer" was only used in the phrase "old geezer" suggesting it meant an elderly person. But I've spent most of my adult life in London now, where "geezer" is just a local version of "dude". The article seems to have used it in this second sense. Is that becoming common in the US now?
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:50 AM on April 5, 2021

I don't think it's becoming common in the US now at all. Look at the ages of all the actors they're discussing:

Bruce Willis: 66
Steven Seagal: 68
Robert De Niro: 77
Sylvester Stalone: 74
Al Pacino: 80
John Travolta: 67
Val Kilmer: 61
Kelsey Grammer: 66
Denise Richards: 50
50 Cent: 45

50 Cent is the youngest at 45. I included Kelsey Grammer and Denise Richards because I mentioned them in a similar film upthread. The point being that other than 50 Cent and Denise Richards, basically every single person on this list qualifies as an "Old Geezer."

I think the article uses it in the American vernacular, and just assumes everyone understands that these are a bunch of old, often fat, over-the-hill, action-movie stars that have no business continuing to be in action movies. I definitely think "geezer" here refers to the age of the people involved.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:03 AM on April 5, 2021 [4 favorites]

(Also, I wouldn't be too quick to make assumptions about lack of debt.)

Seconding. Besides being basically independent contractors who pay for everything out-of-pocket, these are also people who got used to making Big Bucks and spending even Bigger Bucks on a lark. They've all likely made some really, really bad investments and probably tried to hide away some of their cash in dodgy tax havens. Nic Cage, for example, famously blew tons of money buying up houses and dinosaur bones (that he later had to give back!), and still owes a shit-ton in back taxes.
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:31 PM on April 5, 2021 [1 favorite]