MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Stupidest Media Spin Of Late

Why is everyone constantly writing stories with the psychotic assumption that the “trouble” between Miramax and Disney started over Fahrenheit 9/11?

The funny thing about the Biskind piece about same is that he leads with this notion, but then explains, with unusually few errors for Biskind, how the discomfort built up over time.

Disney does have a very unique, anti-showoff mentality which conflicts with Miramax. But it was a great piece of business… until Harvey decided to get into the $80 million movie business. And it isn’t just one or two movies. It has become more and more the norm in recent years.

In a case like Kill Bill, the Weinstein genius turned a potential $100 million boondoggle into a cash cow. But then there are films like The Great Raid, which no one talks about even though it has been done for well over a year, is said to have cost closer to $100 million than $50 million and has no stars (unlike An Unfinished Life) or across the board raves and incredible looking action sequences (like Hero) that can pull it out of the dumper.

Thing is, Weinstein is a genius at finding what is compelling about a movie and selling the crap out of that. That can’t be replaced at Miramax by Disney. And if he just kept doing that for movies that cost less than $50 million, Disney would be happy to put up with the unpleasant part… anyone would, really. Cause that’s where the money it. And as much as Disney culture might want to smack down The Fat Man, the bottom line is still the bottom line.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “The Stupidest Media Spin Of Late”

  1. mark says:

    Miramax is a graveyard for bad films.

  2. ShaunGettingScrewed says:

    I just looked at the weekday numbers for Shaun of the Dead, #1 per theater avg. in the top ten. Why is this film only showing on 600 screens, particularly when there’s no good teen action/horror getting released this weekend? Why don’t distribution heads get fired when they fuck up a release like this?

  3. BrotherhoodOfSteel says:

    Because FOCUS features/Rogue films had no faith
    in Shaun making any money in WIDE RELEASE, Shaun.
    The film would have been pushed back more if it
    were not for the net, in some small part, aiding
    in the release date here in the US getting moved up.
    They wanted Chuckie to be their first belief, but
    they got Shaun instead. What can you do? It might
    go wide, but I doubt.
    Leaving me pretty damn glad that the true master of the genre (No
    knocking Shaun, because it easily ranks in the top
    5 of all time zomebie films) George “Deserves to
    get a ruttin Honorary Oscar” Romero luckily had
    LAND OF THE DEAD picked up for distribution by
    UNIVERSAL itself. Leaving me hoping George
    will get a number 1 flick next year from a studio
    who are all up in the zombie genre now. Not some
    off shoot.

  4. Martin says:

    zombie movies are a wasteland for the hacks of the industry, but just in business terms they really screwed up the Shaun release. I could have easily done $8-10 mill last weekend if it went wide, or done the same thing this weekend. Now they say they’re going wide next weekend, when there are like 5 major releases in that same demographic so it will get lost. Oh well. Not my money..

  5. mark says:

    Is Danny Boyle a hack?

  6. Martin says:

    no, boyle started the zombie craze of late, he created the market for it. The hacks are the guys trying to make a buck off his success. How many fucking zombie movies are out or in the works right now? It’s such a lame genre in the first place. When you’ve gotten to the place in your career where you’re remaking Dawn of the Dead, you might as well just throw in the towel.

The Hot Blog

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