Gotta respect a producer who "takes his ball and goes home" when a studio balks at his chosen subject matter. Frankly I think there's way too much compromise in the movie biz, especially when you consider that film is supposed to be a balance between commerce and art. Lately it seems like the commerce has taken over. Like cancer.

Anyway, I just fan-ranted for a minute, but that's what happens when the name David Fincher comes up. For a while now, the director of fine films like Seven, Fight Club, and Zodiac has been planning to produce a new adaptation of the famous Heavy Metal magazine. If you're even slightly familiar with the publication (or this 1981 movie, which is highly uneven but certainly worth seeing -- and hearing!) then you know that any sort of Heavy Metal movie would inevitably be rated R. Sex, violence, profanity, monsters, huge barrels of cleavage ... Heavy Metal trades in all that stuff big-time. (Plus it's the home of several fantastic artists.)

But according to Hollywood Insider, Paramount got a little skitchy about the project's subject matter. "Too risque for mainstream audiences" is how EW's Nicole Sperling describes it. Mr. Fincher and his collaborators (Kevin Eastman, Steve Niles, and several others) are now offering the project around Hollywood, and it shouldn't take too long for the guys to find a buyer: I can't imagine that an animated feature like this would cost all THAT much, plus it's probably good politics to be pals with David Fincher. Plus, and most important, this project would certainly make some sort of a profit. Obviously it's not a 4,000-screen mid-July tentpole release, but dang ... there's plenty of room at the multiplexes for something different.

Even if that something different is actually based on a 35-year-old magazine.
categories Cinematical