May 5, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
Um, Dave, wasn’t it just a few days ago that you were savagely deriding the many pessimistic statements we’ve seen regarding this year’s box office slog (e.g., the analyses offered in this past week’s Sharon Waxman NYT article)? Now all of a sudden you’re using bold adjectives like “NIGHTMARE” and “BLECHHH!!!” to describe revenues. Huh???
So what is it? Just a string of bad movies? The DVD tipping point? Both? To be honest, I thought the tipping point might still be a couple of years off. Now I’m not so sure.
Geez… I spelled it out, no?
No, there is no major change in the box office pattern.
Yes, it was a SHITTY month for movies.
Why do people need it all to be so black and white? We are only about 2% off of a normal annual variable. But that doesn’t mean that last month was not horrible for some specific marketing and production departments.
Dave’s just stating the B.O. facts here, not attributing the numbers to any sort of overall trend. Damn, everyone loves to bash, don’t they?
But keep an eye out for “Mindhunters” – that thing’s gonna have legs! š
Sure, Dave, no doubt you can spin it that way. Maybe in the end the box office will rebound and your analysis will hold up. But it’s also possible that the negative prognosticators you’ve chastised are ahead of the curve. It just seems a bit unreliably schizo when one day you’re arguing that the waters are calmer than everyone is saying, then five days later you’re issuing a report about the devastating tsunami that left few survivors behind.
Every year we get these stories, Chester. Every single year.
And every single year, I end up writing a story about how stupid all those stories are. (Variety joined me this year… and then, that became the story everywhere.)
The single least meaningless regularly batted about film business stat is overall business, followed closely by market share.
Actually numbers of ticket sales are going down a little every year. I agree that this is a trend that continues. The market has shifted a little more every year, primarily because DVD sale prices are so cheap.
But no one seems to point out that the average amount on money spent on movies in this country has grown enormously based on those DVD sales. DVD sales have way more than covered that shortfall. And economically, you have to acknowledge that a significant percentage of those DVD sales are to people who have bought theatrical tickets… a higher percentage than that 2 or 3 percent that fall over every year.
What none of these reports seem to get, in no small part because DVD numbers are held far more closely than box office numbers (for a good reason… what a disaster that has been for the film business), is that the DVD wave for films has crested. The big growth area now is TV on DVD sales.
Just ask DreamWorks Animation.
Yes, Chet… it is odd to be bemoaning the trend stories one day and speaking to the crappy month the next. But it is a micro/macro issue and I hope that the very idea of these two notions being in conflict will be helpful to readers.
The shitty month led to trend stories that overreached, desperate for a conclusive idea that wasn’t really there. And I’ll tell you what… the “Star Wars as savior” trend stories in response are not much better. Because if you look closely, matching Shrek 2 numbers is a big hurdle for any film – even Darth Vader Lives – and then another film has to match Spider-Man 2 and a third film has to match Harry Potter 3. That’s a big frickin’ bite, my friend. And I suspect that it will only be matched by a lot more middle success than just War of the Worlds or Batman Begins. We’ll see and I’ll be happy for the numbers for this year’s trio to be massive, but beware simple arguments. They are almost always wrong… whether I or you agree with the overall tone.
Dave, thank you for your generously detailed, undeniably impressive response. But despite all the background and data you presented, the central issue remains: whether down=down or down=DOWN. Maybe (and perhaps most likely), as you’ve stated so well, recent box-office slides should be viewed as nothing more than a routine hiccup in the revenue landscape. Then again, maybe this is the tipping point of the significant downward spiral that a lot of people (like Joe Leydon, above) have either expected or are beginning to worry about.
I honestly don’t know, and I certainly bow to your plugged-in insights over my less-reliable reading of the tea leaves. It just seems inevitable to me, though, that the impact of DVDs on box-office receipts can ultimately be nothing but calamitous. It’s not just because DVDs are finally giving people a quality in-home print to watch. It’s not just the greater affordability of excellent home-theatre setups. It’s not just the increasing unpleasantness and cost of going to an average theatre. On top of all that, I think one thing that rarely gets discussed is that more and more DVDs themselves are actually BETTER than what was ever released theatrically. The most obvious example is the extended-cut DVDs released for each film in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, which are universally recognized as distinctly superior to the theatrical cuts. As more and more people take notice of the number of extended/director’s-cut DVDs loaded with substantial extras, over time they may interpret the initial theatrical release as little more than a primer for the DVD. And as that mindset grows, it is logical to believe that fewer people will be willing to pay for admission to what is progressively becoming an inferior theatrical experience. In a very small way, it’s like asking the public to shell out top dollar for a full ticket, then just showing a long trailer for the feature presentation.
How quickly before all of these factors visibly takes hold? Well, Dave, some people are saying there are signs that they’ve already begun to show their grip. Whether or not you or they are right will only be determined after the smoke clears at the end of the summer.
I look at the list of box office failures from the last month and to me what’s missing is that “must see” element. Where are the stars? Martin Freeman? Orlando Bloom? Ice Cube? Paris Hilton? They all feel 2nd (or 3rd) rate to me. That combined with their films lack of killer concepts and they all died. I don’t blame the marketing really, there’s only so much they could do. Audiences just had no interest in what was being offered. Once the stars and entertaining concepts start coming out (Will Ferrell as a soccer coach, JLo vs. Fonda, Last Star Wars, Sandler, Rock, and Football) hits start happening. Jim Carrey in Hitchhiker’s? Maybe $200 mill. Heck, even Tim Allen would’ve gotten that movie up to $70 or $80. Without that “big name” guarantee, alot of this stuff just felt unsafe to audiences.
I posted a link the other day to an IMDb poll asking why voters thought movie attendance and grosses were down and while asking IMDb voters a question like that is a bit silly cause a lot of them aren’t that bright, at the time I posted the link 75% of people had voted for the “The films do not interest me” option.
And that right there is the problem right there (I’ve mentioned this before). None of the films out so far feel like “event” movies. Movies people MUST see. Films that people remark upon seeing the trailer “That movie’s gonna be huge” – it happened even with the “flops” last year like Van Helsing and Troy.
the box office is off because these are on the whole shitty films. no other way around it. u can say its marketings fault for not selling them but people are smarter than that
All I know is that every movie on that list is a bomb. And won’t ever be remembered by anyone.
I thought I read here from a few people that Ice T was a star and could carry an action movie? Seems that defense team moved on really quick. I don’t blame them.
Not to nitpick, but I don’t think these estimates are all that “generous” in several cases. Hitchhiker looks like it will probably cross the $50 million mark. Probably won’t exceed 60, but still. Kingdom of Heaven, similarly, is at 35 after a second weekend… it will probably squeak above 50.
Wow, who expected Hitchhiker’s to maybe outgross KOH?
Not that HH’s gross is fantastic, but considering the number of cultists who’ll buy the DVD, they probably won’t lose money on it. Hellboy didn’t get over 60 mil, either!
the brightside is hitchhiker isn’t a bomb but its not a hit
Terence: No one has said anything about Ice T. It’s Ice Cube who was catching the love.
Ice Cube, Ice T, Vanilla Ice, can you blame me?
I take responsibility. I was one of the people who said the Cube could carry and action movie, but xXx thing was a STOOPID, badly written action movie. If he gets a better vehicle he’ll do fine, but he and Vin Deisel might be doing kiddie fare 4-ever given how much their babysitting flicks made.
Maybe the answer for Cube is a kid-action flick. Maybe an urban Park District swimming pool SPonge Bob-Ninja Turtle kid action movie. Cool.
Memo!
cube made a bad call taking vin deisels crums. he didn’t have paul walker to help him here
So I’m at the movies last night with my 18-year-old son and his buddy. And when I point to the poster for an upcoming summer movie, both guys ask me: “What the f**k is ‘Bewitched’?” Uh-oh.