On Message

I saw a poster advertising Bring It On: In It To Win It while shopping yesterday, and it seemed odd since I've never really heard this phrased used outside the context of Hillary Clinton or people making fun of Hillary Clinton. But apparently someone in the world of B movies was into it, so here we go.

Like all decent people, I think the original Bring It On is a surprisingly good film. I was also dimply aware of the 2003 direct-to-video sequel, Bring It On Again. I hadn't, however, realized that a third film, Bring It On: All Or Nothing had been released last year and thus was totally unprepared for this release. Intriguingly, it seems that these "sequels" not only don't share actors with earlier films in the "series" but don't share any of the characters or plot development, either -- it's just a pure branding exercise.

Comments

$250 to the first candidate that will utter:

I'm sexy,
I'm cute,
I'm popular to boot!

(Edwards, of course, owns the next stanza)

Posted by MB | December 10, 2007 8:56 AM

I like that they are advertising it as an "All-New Movie!" Does this mean that other movies are only mostly new? I suppose this is true - the second lord of the rings movie was barely new at all - same old characters, same old location, same old overarching conflict with the forces of evil. BORING.

Posted by William | December 10, 2007 8:56 AM

It reminds me of the testimonials after all of America was forced to see Coupon: The Movie: "Yeah... and it was a MOVIE!" (4:05 mark, starring Mary-Lynn Rajksub and Jack Black)

Posted by norbizness | December 10, 2007 9:03 AM

"Edwards, of course, owns the next stanza"

Guys want to touch Edwards' chest?

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 9:08 AM

"Intriguingly, it seems that these "sequels" not only don't share actors with earlier films in the "series" but don't share any of the characters or plot development, either -- it's just a pure branding exercise."

This is not a new innovation.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 9:10 AM

Erm, I meant line, not stanza. Yeah, that's it.

But looking at it now, I think we can pretty easily assign the next three lines, no?

Take it, John:

I'm bitchin', great hair! The boys all love to stare!

Over to you, Barack:

I'm wanted, I'm hot! I'm everything you're not!

Go, Hillary:

I'm pretty, I'm cool! I dominate this school!

The 2008 primary, explained in three easy lines from an 8 year old movie.

Posted by MB | December 10, 2007 9:15 AM

I wondered how Eliza Dushku never got more famous and popular out of "Bring It On." She was the movie, but then again, that's kind of a back-handed compliment.

Posted by Reality Man | December 10, 2007 9:16 AM

I was also dimply aware of the 2003 direct-to-video sequel...

Ha! This is why I don't mind the typos so much--sometimes they're hilarious.

I mean, I assume that was a typo.

Posted by JB | December 10, 2007 9:37 AM

"In it to win it" is an extremely old phrase. It goes back at least as far as the movie Yankee Doodle Dandy, which was released in 1942 (I'd bet the phrase is older than that, but it's the earliest usage I know of). In that movie, there's a montage of flag-waving songs, and one of the phrases they use is "now that we're in it, we're in it to win it," referring to the post-Pearl Harbor national mood.

Posted by Haggai | December 10, 2007 9:41 AM

"I mean, I assume that was a typo."

Of course it's not a typo.

Matthew meant that he was fully aware of the sequel and it made him smile. Don't tell me you've never said that you were dimply aware of something...

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 9:46 AM

Don't tell me you've never said that you were dimply aware of something...

No, but then again I'm often ridiculed for my frownish attitude.

Posted by JB | December 10, 2007 9:54 AM

This could perhaps be better discussed at MetaYglesias.com in the Typo or Not forum.

Posted by Nat | December 10, 2007 10:32 AM

"...it's just a pure branding exercise."

In fact, the DTV or sequel market is much more complicated than this. Sometimes a special effects shop will use or sell an CGI innovation developed for a major release in a series of low budget horror films. Shannon Tweed made a living from sex noir videos having nothing much in common but a naked Shannon Tweed.

There is a sizable market for independent direct-mail "movies" many of which never make it to theatres, TV, or festivals.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 10, 2007 10:57 AM

"In fact, the DTV or sequel market is much more complicated than this."

Sure. But this particular technique - pumping out unconnected sequels - is a tried and true method in direct to video.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:02 AM

Didn't learn a lot from researching the "Bring It on" series at IMDB:Steve Rash directed 2, different witers, the most recent has a different production entity. These are three of the elements that can consistent for a lower budget series.

My guess is that the series is direct-marketed to the competitive cheerleading community. No, you will never hear about them. There might be trout-fishing comedies or surfing videos.

I have heard it can cost $100k to make these things, so selling 10k copies and the net profits start, after everyone has drawn a salary. And of course, they can be creative tax shelters.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 10, 2007 11:10 AM

Come to think of it, I didn't check what would be consistent for a series of competitive cheerleading movies:the choreographers.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 10, 2007 11:18 AM

"it's just a pure branding exercise."

Yes, but at least we got to look at cheerleaders.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | December 10, 2007 12:21 PM

I'm surprised Matt, being from New York, doesn't remember the Lotto slogan of a few years ago: "You gotta be in it to win it." Further, Hillary's usage omitted "it." Her site on announcement day said, "I'm in. And I'm in to win."

Posted by John E. | December 10, 2007 12:44 PM

This could perhaps be better discussed at MetaYglesias.com in the Typo or Not forum.

Sadly, this site does not exist.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 10, 2007 1:34 PM

I wondered about something similar (see the update). My conclusion: it's a Cincinnati thing.

Posted by TLB | December 10, 2007 1:56 PM

I was working in a talent management office when this was cast - I don't think it was listed as a low budget production under guild rules, which DTV usually is. Of course, it could have been intended theatrical and then demoted when they realized they couldn't attach even any B/C-list names to it - that's what happened with the last American Pie, iirc.

Posted by Senescent | December 10, 2007 2:00 PM

Well, actually, of greater interest would be that it was guild at all, which DTV almost never is.

Posted by Senescent | December 10, 2007 2:01 PM

And also, like, P.P.S also, back then it went by the name "Bring It On Yet Again".

Posted by Senescent | December 10, 2007 2:03 PM

I wondered how Eliza Dushku never got more famous and popular out of "Bring It On."

Along with her other, err, attributes, Ms. Dushku is equipped with extremely poor judgment when it comes to telling the difference between a good script and a bad one. Exhibit A: Soul Survivors. Exhibit B: Wrong Turn.

Posted by Thlayli | December 10, 2007 3:37 PM

Just looked this one up at IMDB. Notable for having the longest list of unknown bimbo actresses I've ever seen in a movie.

Then again, it IS a movie about cheerleaders.

As for Eliza, "Buffy" did everything for her she'll ever need to be famous.

"Shannon Tweed made a living from sex noir videos having nothing much in common but a naked Shannon Tweed."

Sybil Danning used to do the same thing - star and/or "introduce" a ton of "action movies" which mostly featured her getting semi-nekkid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 10, 2007 8:01 PM

Ha ha, there actually is a series of trout fishing comedies, and, c'mon, somebody here is old enough to remember the surfer movies.

If cheerleader movies were as good as surfer movies, I'd be first in line.

Posted by serial catowner | December 10, 2007 8:15 PM

I was kind of hoping metayglesias.com existed.

Posted by djw | December 10, 2007 10:03 PM

"Like all decent people, I think the original Bring It On is a surprisingly good film."

Matty, we hardly knew ye.

Posted by oswald | December 10, 2007 10:09 PM