MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Saving private Premieres

Frankly, I hate to be writing this story. I like the publicity department at DreamWorks; I am deeply enamored of the company’s unique way of separating quality filmmaking from the pure hype that has become so much a part of getting an audience, and I look forward to working with them in the future. But they screwed up this time. First, Newsweek backdoored them by releasing their Saving Private Ryan cover story two weeks ahead of time, which is kind of a pun because the problem with the timing was that it precluded a Time magazine cover story. One can’t really blame DreamWorks for that, though you don’t often see magazines risking the wrath of the more-established studios.
Then, Tuesday night, the Saving Private Ryan premiere hit the beach without “Entertainment Tonight.” Why? Because DreamWorks had given the “No. 1” camera spot to “Access Hollywood,” presumably in a deal that came along with special “Access Hollywood” coverage of the event. Or, perhaps someone was unhappy with E.T. and wanted to put them in their place. Regardless of why, this had to be a conscious choice by Terry Press and Co. made long before the event took place.
I’m sure it never occurred to the studio that E.T. would actually skip the event in a fit of pique. Especially since it’s a Paramount movie. And also because TV viewers would have no way of knowing who had the “No. 1” spot and who got the No. 2. But skip it, E.T. did (“respect must be paid”) and DreamWorks (who really doesn’t need any more hype for this sure-bet double-digit Oscar-nominee film) lost a day of free promo from the highest rated of the entertainment “news” shows.
NEW LOSS: I feel that I should disclose that roughcut.com did not boycott the premiere. We weren’t invited because DreamWorks made an exclusive deal with a competing Internet site. The truth is that the other site would have covered the event in the exact same way had they not had an exclusive (though I am sure they claimed otherwise, and I’m sure we will do the same when we try to get an exclusive from DreamWorks or another studio in the future). We on the Net, like the TV shows, will go after whatever story (or premiere) will get us the most viewers. The old image of the Internet as a free-for-all that rewarded content over corporation has begun to devolve into being just another form of media.
Fortunately for me, roughcut.com is here, because The Hot Button would be subject to daily censoring at any of the other major entertainment websites. Here, they let me tell the truth. At least, the truth as I see it. (And for the record, even as a member of the Time Warner family, roughcut.com has some very idealistic folks at TNT to thank for our ongoing existence, not the corporate superstructure. I know that it’s very hard for Netizens to see us as an underdog site given that we are a product of the biggest cable network in the world, but that’s what we are. And we try harder.)
SPRING FORWARD, MOVE BACK: Try to come up with the worst idea for a feature film ever. Then go lower. The Jerry Springer Movie is for real. It’s happening. They have a multi-million dollar play-or-pay deal with Spinger, and now they’ve hired a director. This reminds me of The Gong Show Movie, which ended up as a maudlin and stupid effort indeed. Also, none too successful, though it did give a feature credit to Jaye P. Morgan and Gary Mule Deer. The video may end up selling, depending on how ugly this movie gets, but as a feature, I think we should all take the Donnie Brasco position. Fugeddaboudit.
SUPERSTAR ANONYMOUS: Another interesting film idea is Detox, which Sylvester Stallone just signed up for as picture two of his three-picture deal at Universal. It’s a story about a cop who lands in 12-step (For violence-based trauma. Heaven forbid Stallone play drunk and not be able to stop slurring after recovery). and ends up seeing his fellow aspirants-to-mental-health dying in not-so anonymous ways. I’m guessing they die in ways related to the 12 steps. That way, when they hit a marketing glitch, they can change the title to Twelve and add some sepia-tone and scary music to the trailer. It’s Stallone’s first film since CopLand, so just like Arnold Schwarzennegger, one of the world’s “most bankable actors” will end up with a two-year hiatus between films. Who was it that said, “The times, they are a changing,” Bob or Jakob Dylan?
SPIN WATCH: In a lovely piece of spin, Variety is now towing Universal’s line that Stallone only got $17.5 million for the first (Daylight) of his commitment to three. Unfortunately, this is after Stallone’s $20 million per film in the multi-picture deal, which was one of the first things his former agent Ron Meyer did after becoming a top honcho at the U, has become the longest-talked-about salary figure in the last three years. The question here is who is spinning and why. Do “they” think the $2.5 million differential will make people feel that Universal has become a more responsible company? Or is someone putting Sly in his place?
READERS OF THE DAY: From Rich B.: “I want to see BASEketball simply because the previews are hilarious, and if they can approach that for an hour-and-a-half, it should be great. On the other hand, the preview for MAFIA! doesn’t impress me at all, and if I hear that little girl screech ‘Run, florist, run’ one more time I might do something disturbingly violent — but not in a cartoonish ZAZ way.”
From Randal N.: “MAFIA! will win hands down!! MAFIA!”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon