In Control Of All Things


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Zodiac Media: In Control Of All Things

By Tom Voigt (Admin) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 05:17 pm:

Beginning June 1, a major motion picture will begin filming in Vallejo, Calif. In Control Of All Things will be a fact-based narrative on the Zodiac case. Details as soon as I get 'em.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-151-197-63-149.phil.east.verizon.net - 151.197.63.149) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 06:55 pm:

Funny that the title should come from a letter of dubious authenticity!

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 06:57 pm:

Yeah, I feel the same way. Funny thing is, they are extremely focused on getting the facts right.

By Ryan Olesin (Ryan) (d150-160-190.home.cgocable.net - 24.150.160.190) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 08:23 pm:

Regardless of its authenticity, 'in control of all things' could still apply to Zodiac.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 08:36 pm:

It's a catchy title. Soon I should have the green light to reveal the cast.

By Richard Pearce (144.139.107.115) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 03:48 am:

Ryan Olesin, could you check your email please.
Sorry Tom, but I sent it a few days back.

By Warren (Warren) (w205.z064002105.hou-tx.dsl.cnc.net - 64.2.105.205) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:28 am:

I absolutely refuse to engage in cast speculation, although most of my A list have been recently indicted for one transgression or another.

By Oddball (Oddball) (pcp02495070pcs.flrnc01.al.comcast.net - 68.62.174.172) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:01 pm:

"In Control of All Things" sounds promising. The fact that I live in rural Alabama will make seeing the film considerably difficult, but I'll do my damnedest.

By Rick Miller (proxys.ia4.marketscore.com - 66.119.33.170) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 03:46 pm:

Tom,

Have you or any other Zodiac researcher been asked to consult on "In Control of All Things?"

Rick

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 06:26 pm:

Rick, I've been helping whenever possible. Since the film has nothing to do with a certain author's works of fiction, the producers are focused on getting the facts right.

By George In MD (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.208.167) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:26 am:

And the movie is going to jog some memories. Since
people respond to movies differently than they do books, articles, etc., there may be one or two completely new witnesses, or a new, verifiable connection may arise and who knows what else.

Most of the e-mail and snail mail generated by the film won't pan out, but a needle in a haystack
is completely plausible. Short of a verifiable confession falling from the sky and/or some nuclear DNA match, the film may be the best chance
for new and significant data regarding Zodiac to come along in years. Okay, I stated the obvious but I am excited about this motion picture!

By scott (134.69.102.189) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:34 pm:

I've checked several sources here in Hollywood, including Daily Variety's In Production list and Breakdown Services (which would run casting notices), and a friend who works at Open Grave Films (which did the Ted Bundy movie, is shooting one in July on the Hillside Strangler and has one on the boards about the Zodiac) and none of them show a film with this name starting June 1. Any idea what's up?

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:51 pm:

Trust me Scott, it's the real deal.

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 07:44 am:

Hollywood will never, ever make a major motion picture based on Zodiac, ever. And if they did, they would ruin it. They would cast Mike Myers in his first dramatic role as the Zodiac and Tom Cruise would be Inspector Toschi. I hope no such movie is made. And Tom was never asked to consult on a movie that is never being made. Because when Hollywood comes knocking on your door to ask you to be a consultant on a major motion picture (as Tom says) you don't do it in your spare time or "whenever possible". And Tom is not going to divulge the cast (to a nonexistent project) when he gets the "greenlight", but when he reads about it in People magazine. But I am sure Tom will delete this post because he likes to be "In Control of All Things" himself. And he is the undisputed champ of internet censorship.

By scottt (dialup-67.73.6.150.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.6.150) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:51 pm:

Ok, thanks Tom.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 01:20 pm:

"Tom was never asked to consult on a movie that is never being made...I am sure Tom will delete this post because he likes to be "In Control of All Things" himself."

Lester, please make sure and stick around to see what happens.

By the way, does anyone believe Lester will be man enough to apologize and admit he was wrong? Me neither.

By ZK (cpe-66-191-53-066.spart.sc.charter.com - 66.191.53.66) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 08:23 pm:

tom, I actually disagree with Lester, despite are differences.

who better than tom to consult on a big movie about z? graysmith would screw it up worse than his books.

By ZK (cpe-66-191-53-066.spart.sc.charter.com - 66.191.53.66) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 08:35 pm:

Tom, speaking of graysmith, itshould be illegal for him to print such rubbish. i udnerstand a movie will be made about his books this summer, too.

I look forward to "in control of all things"

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 07:45 am:

Tom, I will apologize right here and now (in advance) if I am wrong.

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 12.224.139.118) on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 01:22 pm:

Why, that's very big of you, Lester. Of course, since you're the guy who called me a liar without any reason whatsoever, you're still rather tiny.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (host-66-81-183-88.rev.o1.com - 66.81.183.88) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 01:24 am:

Lester,
Tom has a proven consistant track record for veracity concerning the Zodiac case.He is a reconized authority on Zodiac case fact.Anyone who knows his work on the case will affirm this fact.I know it- I affirm it.

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 09:45 am:

I don't doubt Tom's position as an authority on Zodiac. I just do not believe there is any movie being made, at least not a major motion pic. Maybe 3 film students and $10,000 they cash advanced on Mom's credit card are consulting Tom about their Zodiac "film". I'd believe that. My Bulls*** Meter is just turned up to 11, that is all. I'll put my money where my mouth is: If
"In Control Of All Things" hits my local megaplex and Tom Voigt is given some kind of consultant credit, I'll donate $100 to this site.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (pool-141-151-75-208.phil.east.verizon.net - 141.151.75.208) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:02 am:

I'm not sure what the status is, but if I had a nickel for every Zodiac movie that was going to be made over the course of the past seven years, I'd have about fifty cents or so.

By Howard Davis (Howard) (64.30.222.112.lcinet.net - 64.30.222.109) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 08:38 pm:

Les',
You partially misunderstood me.If someone with Toms known track record says it is a "major motion picture,"then he has good reason for going public with that information.

By jeffrey (c-67-164-217-194.client.comcast.net - 67.164.217.194) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:38 pm:

I believe Tom, and quite frankly, I look forward to a major motion picture about Zodiac. I see no reason for Tom not to be telling the truth. As a quick sidenote, does anyone know of any other films based on Zodiac? I know "Dirty Harry" was based on him, but are there any others?

just thoughts,
jeff

By nick (host232.uboc.com - 65.194.243.232) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:48 am:

Frankly, I believe Tom. Why wouldn't I. It's not like he has anything to gain by lieing.

I just hope they don't inject too much drama for mass appeal. Cases like the zodiac and ripper are best told in documentaries. Bill Curtis convinces me. Johnny Depp gives me a headache.

The last thing the zodiac case needs is an inventive story line. The general public would soak it right up. God, I hope they didn't consult Bob Graysmith.

By an observer (h24-82-235-151.wp.shawcable.net - 24.82.235.151) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 09:20 am:

seems to me this story does not have 'movie formula'...a beginning, a middle, FOLLOWED BY an END. I wonder how they'll handle that? Clever graphics?

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.12.215.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.12.215) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 09:30 am:

Hey all,

I am a professional in the film business here in Los Angeles (I am posting anonymously because I don't want to cause embarassment for myself or for the producers involved as I interviewed for my particular position and was passed over for someone with more experience).

Rest assured that there IS a motion picture being filmed (but based on the budget I don't know if I would call it 'major'). I have read the script though, and it's very good. I got interested in the case only after reading the script and have become fascinated by it and believe me, it seems truer to detail than anything I have watched during my research.

While I'm dissappointed that I am not working on the movie (having just finished a picture in the SF bay area, loved it), I'm glad that I was made aware of this fascinating case, one that I will continue to follow.

I wish the best of luck to the director, producers and Tom in making a compelling film.

Cheers!

By scott (dialup-67.73.6.129.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.6.129) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:25 am:

Hi Anonymous:

Why is the project (including the title) being concealed?

By Tom_Voigt (12-224-130-215.client.attbi.com - 12.224.130.215) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:37 am:

The title is concealed? I named this thread after it and wrote:
"Beginning June 1, a major motion picture will begin filming in Vallejo, Calif. In Control Of All Things will be a fact-based narrative on the Zodiac case. Details as soon as I get 'em."

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.12.215.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.12.215) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:53 am:

Scott,

If you're referring to your earlier post about the film not showing up on any of the listings, I couldn't say as I haven't looked at them in a few weeks. I am going to pick up the Production Weekly later today and I'll check. I know the name of the production company and I'll see it even if its under another title but I won't reveal it so please don't ask. (I have to work here y'know :).

So, why keep it under wraps? To do precisely what it's doing, making everyone ask. Well, maybe everyone isn't asking but you get the idea.

Making films is analagous to starting an avalanche. Your first 'push' is the script/story and how good it is determines its 'rock' factor. If talented actors/directors like it, their 'rock' is added to the slide. Along the way the 'buzz' over a film is part of the debris that fuels the slide. The goal is to have the project reach the bottom with the most possible momentum hopefully taking out the town (audience). However, some slides don't make it to the bottom no matter how big the rocks. This town is littered with projects that simply lost their momentum. We have a joke that you're really never sure of a job until you cash your SECOND paycheck (sometimes not even then!).

I'm sure there are many producers who would cringe at my conjuring up such a vision (especially with words like 'slide' and 'bottom') but hey, its only an analogy.

There are other reasons the film might not be listed yet, things that I'm not fully informed on (SF film commission as opposed to LA for example). I'm not a producer. But the last film I made in the SF area (for around the same budget) was never listed in the LA trades.

Hope this helps.

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.12.215.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.12.215) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:03 pm:

After re-reading my last post it seems to imply that I think that 'buzz' is THE reason the film is not listed. More likely is some other, simpler reason as the last paragraph states. Just thought I should clarify.

My original reason for posting btw, was simply to let you all know that it is indeed a legitimate project not "3 film students and $10,000 they cash advanced on Mom's credit card", lol...that would barely cover two days film stock...

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.35.207.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.35.207) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:39 pm:

Okay, one last thing: it's entirely possible that to list the project under it's name might induce wackos to call the production office. Given the, uh, diverse veins of thought that are visible on this message board, what about all those that only lurk? I definitely got a bit of a chill once I realized that I might be making a film about a murderer who might be lurking about the set...

The last thing you want is having your office coordinator answer calls saying "This is the Zodiac speaking..." or "I know who the Zodiac is..." while trying to accomplish a hundred menial but important tasks related to the nuts-and-bolts of filmmaking.

By Scott_Bullock (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

Anonymous,

First of all, welcome to the board; the more intelligent minds that are made aware of this case the better, in my opinion.

Secondly, I also know the creative team behind this project and have told Tom V. privately, more than once, I've no doubt that the film will turn out excellently. I went to film school with the director of the film (who will remain nameless until Tom decides to reveal his biography) for 4 years. Tom V. and I have become good friends over the past couple of years. What a small world!

Out of curiosity, what position did you apply for on the project? I've got a project slated to be lensed this fall/winter. If you wish to contact me privately, feel free to get my email address from Tom and contact me. [I know Tom will berate me for not simply posting it, but I simply can't deal with some of the whackos like Tom can... lol!]

By Scott_Bullock (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 01:07 pm:

By the way, we'll probably start hearing a lot more about this film once principal photography has begun; most trades magazines allow production companies to either advertise for free or at reduced rates for the duration of the actual production. Just a thought.

By scott (dialup-67.73.16.74.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.16.74) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 02:34 pm:

Tom: "Concealed" in the sense of being shot under an assumed name. I understand that your title is the accurate one.

Anonymous: I understand all about 'buzz' having grown up in L.A. and in the film business. (At least, I think I do.) Matrix II and III, for example, were shot under an assumed name in Australia, not necessarily to create a buzz but to be able to control content.

I think we can agree, however, that while there are many reasons to hide the fact of a film's production, there are also reasons to not hide it (discouragement of competiting projects for example) and that concealment is more the exception than the rule.

The only thing I'm really curious about is the script and the angle of the story. Would love to get my clutches on it just to see their take. Thanks for your posts.

Scott

By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 03:02 pm:

May 30, 2003
Vallejo Times-Herald

Sandler, Zodiac films headed to Vallejo

By Matthias Gafni Times-Herald staff writer

Who needs Hollywood when there's Vallejo?

Two feature length movies -- one starring celebrities Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore and Rob Schneider, the other focusing on the Zodiac case -- are scheduled to film scenes in town next month. June's activity will qualify as the busiest film period in the city's history, an official said.

Columbia Pictures has been negotiating for the use of Six Flags Marine World to film a few scenes for Adam Sandler's new film "50 First Kisses." The crew will begin pre-production Monday and needs about two weeks to complete the shoot, said park spokesperson Jeff Jouett.

Why Marine World?

One word -- walrus.

Sandler plays a marine mammal biologist who works with walruses. Sivuqaq, a 9-year-old male and one of four walruses at the park, will share a couple scenes with Sandler. The other three female walruses will have cameos.

Jouett remained tight-lipped about the film Thursday, as he awaited an OK from the studio to release information.

"We have a location agreement negotiated, but it's not yet signed," Jouett said.

He confirmed that "one of our walruses will be playing in a few scenes opposite the stars of the picture."

Sandler already visited Marine World and Sivuqaq.

"In April, Sandler flew up and went to the park. They brought him up to meet the walrus," said Jim Reikowsky of the Vallejo/Solano Film Commission. "From what I heard, Adam and the walrus just bonded."

Film crews also got some shots of the dolphin tank during that visit that they may use, he said.

The movie, which is filming in Hawaii currently, is being directed by Peter Segal, who led Sandler and Jack Nicholson in "Anger Management."

"50 First Kisses" is a romantic comedy featuring love interests Henry Roth (Sandler) and Lucy Whitmore (Barrymore). Every night, Lucy falls asleep and forgets the previous day, leaving Roth to woo her daily -- hence the title.

The park will remain open during the filming, but the walrus exhibit will be closed, Jouett said.

The last movie shot in Marine World was in October. One of the final scenes from the soon-to-be-released "Blackout," starring Samuel L. Jackson, was filmed involving a Marine World sea lion, Jouett said.

The park has also hosted numerous television and commercial crews, he said.

On a down note, the Columbia crew has decided to stay at the Marriott Hotel in Napa, pulling away business from Vallejo, Reikowsky said.

"I certainly wasn't happy, but what are you going to do?" Reikowsky asked. "They made a decision that they wanted a little better hotel than the Holiday Inn, not that the Holiday Inn is bad. ... They wanted the Marriott over what hotels we could provide them in Vallejo."

The second film, however, has already put up shop in town.

"In Control of All Things," an independent fact-based narrative on the search for the Zodiac, plans to begin shooting June 8. Los Angeles-based Shadow Films, the production company, has already rented office space on Tennessee Street.

"It's about the Zodiac killings of the 1960s. It's not a documentary, it's a drama. They're not speculating about who did it; it's based on facts," said Reikowsky of the $1 million budget film.

"I read the script and it focuses on the policemen and detectives involved ... it's a composite of them all," Reikowsky said.

"It also focuses on the fear back in the '60s. People didn't lock their doors in the '60s and all the sudden they were."

Director Alex Bulkley has already scoped out numerous Vallejo sites for their three weeks in town.

"One area they are going to need is near downtown," Reikowsky said. "Part of that area still looks like it's from the '60s.

"They're also looking for a house. A good part of it takes place in the detective's house," he said.

One of the Zodiac's murders occurred near Lake Herman, but the filmmakers couldn't make that area work for them, Reikowsky said. So they will travel elsewhere for that scene.

Another area the filmmakers are looking at is the old Federal Building on Marin Street, he said.

"If you do a 360-degree turn in the middle of that block, it looks like you're in the '60s," Reikowsky said.

Other Vallejo landmarks being looked at are the Empress Theater and maybe even a scene at the Times-Herald, which received numerous letters from the serial killer during his killing spree.

"There may be some intermittent traffic control and some road closures," Reikowsky said, but few other inconveniences.

The producers approached Reikowsky two months ago about filming in Vallejo. He sent images of downtown Vallejo to the production company and "they liked what they saw," he said.

The production company was unavailable for comment Thursday.

The crew of about 50 will be staying in town and pumping money into the economy, Reikowsky said.

The Zodiac killer haunted the Bay Area throughout the '60s and '70s, writing letters to the media and taunting police. Many of his crimes occurred in Vallejo and Napa.

"It's one of the unsolved mysteries people are still interested in. If he got caught, then it would not be as mysterious," Reikowsky said.

The Zodiac case is a hot topic lately amongst filmmakers. Ulli Lommel's "Zodiac Killer" was just shown last week at the Cannes Film Festival.

Reliving the fearsome days of the Zodiac may ruffle the feathers of local residents, Reikowsky said.

"It has been 30 years, but there still could be people in town who remember the crimes, and I told (the producers) they may get questions like: 'Why are they doing it here and not some place else?' "

Having both movies in town at the same time is unprecedented.

"To have two films in town at the same time -- that's never happened to me before," Reikowsky said. "We work hard to bring film production to the county."

By George (cache-rp06.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.253.38) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 08:18 pm:

Clint Eastwood implied strongly once that "Dirty Harry" was a low budget film. He noted that the director was famous for "getting things done quickly." Too, for the uninformed, shooting outdoors is far less expensive than studio work and much of "Dirty Harry" is outdoor photography.
Apart from Eastwood's salary there is nothing expensive about "Dirty Harry," I've even heard it
called a "B Movie." The result? An American masterpiece. "In Control Of All Things" should not be prejudged by its budget-- high, low, in between. " ICOAT should be judged by fact,
direction, screenplay and performances.

By George (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.208.167) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 02:08 am:

I don't know whether or not the music/songs for ICOAT are yet set in stone, but I have
a suggestion.

It's only perhaps five seconds long, and this was not mentioned on the "Dirty Harry" thread.

Fairly early in the film, a get-away driver for an impending
bank robbery sits in his car and his barely-audible radio is playing a song. It took me three tries, but here are the words, which conjure memories of Z clearly:


"Take your mask away/It's been much too long/Halloween season is gone."

(Turn up the volume, you can hear it; the words are sung slowly.)

A sublime movie in-joke if ever there was one. Is there anyone who can give me the title of this song? I've been wondering for years.

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.35.135.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.35.135) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 07:55 am:

George, you are right that no movie should be pre-judged based on budget. There are many fine low-budget features produced every year but you won't see a lot of them, especially in the theaters (as it costs a million or more to promote and distribute a film even in a limited fashion).

The main difference between 'Dirty Harry' and this film is that DH was a 'contemporary' film, shot in it's own time. ICOAT will be a 'period' film - every car, sign, mailbox, phone, gas pump, product labels of ALL kinds, ANYthing that has changed since '71 must be procured or manufactured. BIG difference. Careful location selection and framing can get past a lot of big stuff (such as buildings and billboards), but there are tons of details. It all depends on how accurate one wants to be.

As for music, rarely is any of it 'set in stone' until the post-production process. Expect mostly original music though as rights are always a financial issue.

What usually makes the difference on a low-budget movie is heart and passion. At least this is material that people can give themselves to passionately, as evidenced by the devotion of those who post at this site.

Cheers!

By George (cache-dh03.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.208.167) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 01:47 pm:

Anon--

I hear ya! I believe "Millers Crossing" was fairly
low budget (few sets). Then again, the Coens have a cult following. It was a period piece and I'm sure an exception. Thanks for the extra info!

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 12:28 pm:

WOW!! A MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET!!!! Doesn't catering on a film usually cost a million? This flick will look more like "The Blair Witch Project" than a major motion picture. When a film is just too low-budget it becomes unwatchable or at best campy. I would hate to see a Zodiac film look like "Plan 9 From Outer Space", unless that was the intention.

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 01:12 pm:

Lester, I figured anyone with as big a mouth as yours wouldn't be man enough to apologize for calling me a liar and I was right.

By the way, the Times-Herald didn't speak to anyone from within the film, so that budget figure isn't more than a guess.

By Brad (rdu162-255-149.nc.rr.com - 24.162.255.149) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 01:14 pm:

okay, I gotta ask:

Lester, what is your beef?

A movie is being made, it is about the Zodiac, Tom is apparently consulting, the budget is 1 million dollars and no one on this message board has viewed any of it yet (as far as I know).

Why can't you wait and trash the movie once there'e something to trash?

Why does this all upset you so much personally?

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 01:16 pm:

Brad, Lester's an as*hole. That's why.

By Brad (rdu162-255-149.nc.rr.com - 24.162.255.149) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 01:20 pm:

Fair enough...

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 01:32 pm:

Just to recap, here is what I originally wrote at the beginning of this thread:

"Beginning June 1, a major motion picture will begin filming in Vallejo, Calif. In Control Of All Things will be a fact-based narrative on the Zodiac case. Details as soon as I get 'em."

Lester then wrote:
"Tom was never asked to consult on a movie that is never being made. And Tom is not going to divulge the cast (to a nonexistent project) when he gets the "greenlight", but when he reads about it in People magazine."

Then Lester began changing his tune:
"I just do not believe there is any movie being made, at least not a major motion pic. Maybe 3 film students and $10,000 they cash advanced on Mom's credit card are consulting Tom about their Zodiac "film"."

Lester, the staff is approx. 50 and the budget is apparently around $1 Million. I'm sure most of us can think of many excellent and financially successful films produced for far less money.

Time to admit you're an idiot with a loudmouth.

By scott (134.69.102.202) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 04:51 pm:

Strange:

"One of the Zodiac's murders occurred near Lake Herman, but the filmmakers couldn't make that area work for them, Reikowsky said. So they will travel elsewhere for that scene."

I visited this site yesterday and found it quite chilling. Unspoiled as well, except for a modern railing that could be temporarily removed.
Wonder why they 'couldn't make it work.'?

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 04:53 pm:

Scott, it wasn't feasible to close the road for the length of time necessary to film the scenes.

By scott (dialup-67.73.15.60.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.15.60) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 09:20 pm:

Ok. Shame. That place was really spooky.

By Scott_Bullock (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 10:24 pm:

Classic movies produced for under $1 million:

Halloween was produced for $300,000 and made over $50 million within 2 years of its release.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was produced for approximately $100,000 and is a genuine American classic, as evidenced by its presence in the Museum of Modern Art.

Every Cheech and Chong movie.

Easy Rider is obviously a classic of American cinema. Gee, whose careers did that film launch? Production cost: $100,000.

Night of the Living Dead: produced for $100,000 and is widely believed to be the film that ushered in the modern era of horror.

Clerks; one of the funniest films to come out in the last decade, was produced for $30,000.

El Mariachi was produced for the incredibly miniscule price of $7,000 and was a film festival sensation that launched the career of the amazingly talented Robert Rodriguez.

Reservoir Dogs, in my opinion, Quentin Tarantino's finest film, was produced for roughly $1 million.

Taxi Driver was produced for roughly $100,000. Can you say Martin Scorsese, Jody Foster, and Robert DeNiro?

Friday the 13th: Say what you want, but think about what the paltry $500,000 that it cost to produce this film eventually became; millions upon millions upon millions upon millions...

The Evil Dead was produced for about $360,000 and remains a cult classic that has spawned 2 sequels, a comic book series, and several video games. It also launched the career of Sam Raimi, the very talented director of Spider-Man.

Peter Jackson, acclaimed director of the 2 Lord of the Rings films, got his start by making a film called Bad Taste, which had a budget of about $300,000.

The Blair Witch Project was produced for roughly $30,000 and made over $100 million. While I personally don't care for the film, its appeal was obviously widespread. Conversely, the Kevin Costner fiasco, Waterworld, cost over $100 million to produce and will probably never break even.

By Scott_Bullock (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 10:25 pm:

The point is, it doesn't take tons of money to make a good movie, just tons of audience members who enjoy it. There's nothing under the sun that doesn't have its detractors. Titanic cost roughly $200 million to produce and, though very popular and successful, is utterly hated by many moviegoers, including myself.

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 10:35 pm:

Thanks Scott, that's great info.

While we are all waiting for Lester to apologize (like that will ever happen), I'd like to steer the conversation back to In Control Of All Things by saying I should have some updated info in the next day or two, including casting.

By J Eric (J_Eric) (dsc03-lai-ca-3-175.rasserver.net - 204.30.131.175) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 10:42 pm:

Don't forget The Terminator (I), relatively low budget but made Ahnold a stah! I'm sure Tom V. will keep us all informed. Say, they're not planning to march the camera crew through the annual ZK shindig in Blue Rock Springs, are they?

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) (cache-mtc-ak04.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.96.201) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 07:25 am:

Scott, you left out REPO MAN. How could you?

God, TITANIC, ecch... It wasn't $200,000,000, it was $250,000,000. Give ME $250,000,000 and I'll hand you the cultural event of the 21st Century. $100,000,000 on the nuke, and then...

Lester the Molester doesn't pay much attention to movie budgets. You can do a hell of a lot with a million bucks, if you keep the damned unions and agents out of the mix.

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 07:30 am:

Now Tom, there is no need for name calling. Don't be so sensitive. And I have nothing to apologize for yet. Last time I checked Fandango, there was no Zodiac films playing. Everyone on this board is so sensitive if you don't just nod your head and agree with Tom or whoever. Boards like this are supposed to promote conflicting viewpoints. It would be unproductive if we all just agreed all the time. And Scott, I am very aware of the movies (with their corresponding budgets)listed above, but most of those were made a long time ago, when "Star Wars" cost $10 million (instead of $150 million). I am just saying that movies made now for $1 million look pretty sad. Besides "Blair Witch" and "Clerks" are somewhat novelty items. Besides I am taking issues with Tom's claim of a "Major Motion Picture" being made. If he had said "A small indie film" is being made, I'd beleive that.

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.5.60.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.5.60) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 08:35 am:

?,
And I've seen 20mil movies that 'look pretty sad' - what's worse is that many 'big' budget movies simply ARE sad.

If you knew the filmographies of some of the people involved you'd probably shut up fast. It's fortunate for the filmmakers that things are still somewhat slow here in L.A. after the actor's strike of two years ago (actually the 'pre' strike when production companies rushed many, many projects into production in anticipation of the strike) so the talent pool is rich and costs are low. Similar sitch in SF.

Had to add this: George mentioned the Coen brothers...I was at a studio gate yesterday gaining my entrance pass when they walked right in front of my car! I considered lurching into them just to get their attention, heh heh.

Cheers!

By jeffrey (c-67-164-217-194.client.comcast.net - 67.164.217.194) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 08:54 am:

I think some people are missing Tom's general point here. Isn't it important that someone is attempting to make a Zodiac film based on the facts? Does it really matter what the budget is? I, for one, am happy a film is just being made! Whether it be a "major motion picture" or a "small indie film" is unimportant to me as long as it's a "fact based film".

By Brad (ertpg9e1.nortelnetworks.com - 47.234.0.52) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 09:52 am:

Lester wrote:

"Everyone on this board is so sensitive if you don't just nod your head and agree with Tom or whoever. Boards like this are supposed to promote conflicting viewpoints. It would be unproductive if we all just agreed all the time".

You have no idea how many times I disagree with Tom or what he might write. However, I dont do any of the following:

1. Call him a liar over things of which I have no personal knowledge

2. Type out a bunch of "facts" about topics that I don't really know anything about

3. Claim that a message board is a place for conflicting viewpoints as an excuse for calling someone that I do not know's personal veracity into question.

Hide behind the "free exchange" crap all you want. I'm not Tom's puppet, but I'm not stupid, either.

By Brad (ertpg9e1.nortelnetworks.com - 47.234.0.52) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 09:53 am:

Sorry for being off topic, Tom. Delete at your discretion, of course....

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 10:04 am:

Agreed, most big budget flicks are pure garbage. But it is hard to make a quality film for $1 million, especially if you are trying to do a period piece. If they can pull it off, it will be great, but it would still hardly qualify as a "Major Motion Picture". Plus with that limited budget, it will be hard to see it. Very limited (if any) theatrical release. And have you seen most straight-to-video fare? Hey, I would love to see a high-quality, major motion picture done on the topic. It just isn't happening. My cynicism is pointed at Hollywood, not at the subject matter. Let's fact it, Hollywood is a giant cess pool of a place, churning out pure crap.

By Lester Mills (cache-ntc-ad05.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.106) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 10:14 am:

I still stand behind the idea of what I am saying. However, I read my earlier posts and was rude in calling someone a liar, that was too far. And for that accusation I am sorry. Hopefully, Tom will be man enough to accept my apology and retract calling me a "lound mouth idiot".

By Howard Davis (Howard) (64.30.222.112.lcinet.net - 64.30.222.109) on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 07:08 pm:

My Big Fat Greek Wedding had a cost of around 5 million,but it made 180 million+!

By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 66.185.84.208) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 08:13 pm:

I checked In Control of All Things in internet movie database ( http://us.imdb.com ) and couldn't find any info on the movie. However, i typed in Zodiac Killer and found both the crappy 1970s movie and another link saying The Zodiac Killer (2004). Could this be In Control of All Things or another Zodiac movie??

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 09:05 pm:

Mike, I hope you're not questioning the validity of the film. Are you?

By scnorton5@earthlink.net (dialup-67.73.6.16.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.6.16) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 01:16 am:

"The Zodiac Killer" is a film waiting to be shot by some friends of mine who run a company called Open Grave films. (They are currently doing a film about the Hillside Strangler.)

I don't believe that this film has anything to do with "In Control of All Things."

However, as pointed out above, I'm not sure why there is no current production record (either in IMdB, Breakdown Services, or the DV or HR production reports) regarding In Control of All Things. And no Tom, I'm not questioning its authenticty.

By Scott_Bullock (coral.tci.com - 198.178.8.81) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:56 am:

""The Zodiac Killer" is a film waiting to be shot by some friends of mine who run a company called Open Grave films. (They are currently doing a film about the Hillside Strangler.)"

Is this the same team that recently completed a film about Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez?

By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 66.185.84.208) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:46 am:

Tom, I'm not questioning anything about the movie, i just thought maybe In Control of All Things (since it's not yet complete) might have a different title in Internet Movie Database since it deals with Zodiac Killer, that's all. I for one hope In Control of All Things and i hope it can get a lot of exposure and media attention and not just shown in film festivals.

By Peter H (Peter_H) (64.69.119.89) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:04 pm:

Hey Scott: Don't forget "Rocky" at just over a mil.

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:12 pm:

Mike and scnorton5, I'm glad you guys didn't jump on Lester's "Tom's lying about the movie" bandwagon.

With a little luck I'll have that updated info on the film this week.

By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 66.185.84.208) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 04:19 pm:

I didn't think for a second you'd have a reason to lie about it. So what kind of role do you have as a consultant? Would you be like reviewing the script and making sure it deals with the real life events?

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 05:40 pm:

If anyone has access to today's Hollywood Reporter, there's a feature story on the film. To download it from their website requires a subscription ($14.95). If someone can either e-mail it to me or post it here I would appreciate it.

By scott (dialup-67.73.16.105.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.16.105) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:35 am:

Scott, yes they did the Night Stalker film. The ending was changed from the actual story to fake a showdown between a female detective (?) and Ramirez. What actually happened, of course, was that Ramirez was chased down by his 'own people' in East L.A. and caught.

About a week ago, I spoke to Neal Fredericks at a wrap party for another film; Neal was the Director of Photography for Night Stalker and he was upset about that change, and some others they made from the 'real' Ramirez story. This doesn't bode well for what they might do to Zodiac; unlike "In Control" I'm not sure it will be 'fact based.' (I have nothing to do with the script for that particular film.) Basically, Open Grave is into making films for a particular market; they are good at what they do but historical accuracy isn't their long suit.

The director of the Night Stalker film is the guy who did the sequel to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. I believe he is going to do "Zodiac Killer."

I too would like to see the Reporter story on In Control; that would be cool if someone could post it.

By scott (dialup-67.73.16.105.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.16.105) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:48 am:

Correcting one mistake: the man who is directing the Hillside Strangler movie also did "Henry" and I belive did Zodiac. I don't know who did Night Stalker. Sorry.

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.4.209.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.4.209) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 07:23 am:

I too am too cheap to buy the subscription but if I come across a copy in my travels today I'll get it (most people keep the daily Reporter around for a few days...). If I scan the article can I post that somehow instead of transcribing?

cheers!

By Scott_Bullock (cache-rp06.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.253.38) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:29 am:

"The ending was changed from the actual story to fake a showdown between a female detective (?) and Ramirez."

There were many more changes than that, which is often the case with these million dollars or less pictures. [Btw, Nightstalker was directed by a chap by the name of Chris Fisher. I think this is his first feature film.] Using real names, for example, can be a risky proposition. In the case of the Ramirez film, the fact that he was a huge AC/DC fan had to be eliminated from the film for obvious reasons; the rights to use even 1 AC/DC tune would have consumed their entire budget, and they probably wouldn't have gotten permission even if they'd had the money. I just don't see the publicity department at Epic records saying, "Sure, you can associate one of our major acts with a serial killer, no problem."

Anyway, the point is, there are all kinds of reasons why certain changes are made in movies that are based on real events, but more often than not they have to do with money. And some times it doesn't matter how much money the production has, changes will still have to be made, oftentimes to enhance the dramatic nature of the film. Take Ed Gein, for example; that film was done for less than 1 million, took a couple of liberties with the facts, but was an excellent film, in my opinion.

Thanks for the information, and please keep us updated on the progress of your buddies' Zodiac picture. I think that means there are 4 films about the Zodiac either being produced and/or released this year, and you can bet that all four will be very different even though the intrinsic subject matter is the same.

By El Topo (h-66-166-205-98.snvacaid.covad.net - 66.166.205.98) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:40 am:

Hollywood Reporter article:

Taking 'Control': Chambers, Hall, Tunney in indie


Jun. 10, 2003

By Ian Mohr



NEW YORK -- Robin Tunney, Philip Baker Hall and Justin Chambers are set to star in the indie feature "In Control of All Things" for director Alexander Bulkley.

Set amid the case of the Zodiac Killer, a serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the late 1960s, "Control" follows a police detective and his son who both grow obsessed with the murders and endanger their family in the process.

Bulkley co-penned the "Control" screenplay with Kelly Bulkley. The film, which begins production this week in California, is being produced by Corey Campidonico.

Tunney, who recently wrapped "Paparazzi" for 20th Century Fox and Icon Prods., and Chambers ("Hysterical Blindness") are repped by CAA. Hall, who stars with Nicole Kidman in Lars Von Trier's recent Festival de Cannes competition entry "Dogville," is repped by the Writers & Artists Agency.

Alexander Bulkley previously wrote and helmed the indie feature "Suspects in the Murder of Miss May."

By El Topo (h-66-166-205-98.snvacaid.covad.net - 66.166.205.98) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:54 am:

The last line of the HR article is a little misleading - a web search of the title reveals that it was only a 22 minute 16mm short - hardly what I would call a "feature".

By JMorris (Jmorris) (206-97-63-18.ip.theriver.com - 206.97.63.18) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:46 am:

"Set amid the case of the Zodiac Killer, a serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the late 1960s, "Control" follows a police detective and his son who both grow obsessed with the murders and endanger their family in the process."

So the Zodiac case is just a backdrop to the (fictional) story of the police detective and his family? I'm not saying that wouldn't be good, just not what I was expecting of a "fact-based narrative".

By anonymous (dialup-67.73.4.209.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 67.73.4.209) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:07 am:

JMorris,

Having read the script I can say that you are correct except that the case is hardly a 'backdrop'. This will no doubt upset some purists out there but don't forget - a movie that presents ONLY facts and doesn't add fictional narrative is called a DOCUMENTARY.

IMHO, Philip Baker Hall ROCKS. Congrats to the team for landing him. Wonder who he'll play?...

cheers!

By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 66.185.84.208) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:37 pm:

If the movie happens to be fictional yet has true facts of the real case then i'm all for it. This movie shouldn't a documentary, it should be based on true events. The only thing i'm that will be hard to pull off if it's revealing the Zodiac's identity in the movie on the fictional side. And the fact if it's going to have the real names of the victims or made up names.

By Mike J. Doe (wc13.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com - 66.185.84.208) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:37 pm:

If the movie happens to be fictional yet has true facts of the real case then i'm all for it. This movie shouldn't a documentary, it should be based on true events. The only thing i'm that will be hard to pull off if it's revealing the Zodiac's identity in the movie on the fictional side. And the fact if it's going to have the real names of the victims or made up names.

By Tom_Voigt (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:41 pm:

Thanks for the info, El Topo.

The Reporter article left out an actor who many of you will recognize. As soon as I get permission to post his name I will do so.

By Rick Miller (proxys.ord.marketscore.com - 170.224.224.38) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:00 pm:

I personally cannot wait for the first film previews. That would certainly shut Lester and the rest of his fellow naysayers up.

By El Topo (h-66-166-205-98.snvacaid.covad.net - 66.166.205.98) on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 09:14 am:

No problem, Tom.

I'm optimistic about it myself. Sounds like they're putting together a pretty nice cast. My main concerns mirror Mike's; I just hope they don't change too many of the details.

By Tom Voigt (Admin) (12-231-193-32.client.attbi.com - 12.231.193.32) on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 12:08 am:

Let's continue this discussion at In Control Of All Things Part 2.