/. points to an article on a site apparently called "Chud" which claims that the Guide film has been greenlighted and will start shooting early next year. Good news . . . probably.
It (the site name) had me confused. When the film CHUD came out in the 80's, it was a fave with a few of my friends. One starting referring to crap things as being "chud". Then a member of The Tubes did a solo album and named it "Chud". Now it's a website.
The site name is supposed to stand for "Cinematic Happenings Under Development", but considering the subject matter of the films being covered, your comment of "crap things being 'chud'" is remarkably prescient. But then, after wasting nearly 14 years covering skiffy film and television for any number of magazines and finding that almost all of them (the movies, shows, and magazines) weren't worth the printer ink, I'm a bit biased.
No offense, but I'd almost believe the report if I hadn't heard the same damn thing over and over since 1984, when Ivan Reitman was supposed to direct it as his followup to Ghostbusters. At this point, we may actually get the film, but the only people interested in seeing it are the gimps who were waiting for it and Buckaroo Banzai and the World Crime League back in '85. (An even worse fear: after twenty years of development, the final film is about as faithful to the original as Total Recall was to the original Dick short story.) The advice I've been giving everyone since I was a beginning film critic fifteen years ago: don't believe a damn thing you read about any movie until you actually see its name up on the marquee with the words "Opening Friday" preceding it.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-05 03:03 pm (UTC)When the film CHUD came out in the 80's, it was a fave with a few of my friends. One starting referring to crap things as being "chud".
Then a member of The Tubes did a solo album and named it "Chud".
Now it's a website.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-05 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-05 08:37 pm (UTC)