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” — 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
You know, there’s one angle regarding “Kingdom of Heaven” that’s so obvious that we’ve largely ignored it: Maybe, just maybe, at this particular time, a significant number of people don’t want to see ANY movie that has ANYTHING to do with fighting in the Middle East? Yeah, I know, there are lots of other reasons why it appears to be tanking: Orlando Bloom, lack of clear-cut villain, etc., etc. Still, I can’t help remembering that “Not Without My Daughter” (American woman trapped in Iran while Iran’s at war with Iraq)and “Flight of the Intruder” (Vietnam War action) both opened on the opening weekend of the first Gulf War. Both of those films tanked, too.
With the combination of poor reviews and low-star cast, Kingdom of Heaven was never going to be a big hit. But these numbers are downright disastrous. Maybe they’ll salvage it overseas. Hitchhiker’s is also down the drain and has no shot at a sequel. This weekend is the first sign of movies that will genuinely be quite profitable for the studios. Even Unleashed should be considered a minor hit, as I don’t think it had a very big budget.
I think Joe hit it right on the head.
Unleashed cost $45 million (plus I’d guess about $15 million for marketing), so it’ll have to work overseas and video to get in the black. That’s a shame, as it’s easily Jet Li’s best English-language movie (the fight scenes are shockingly well staged and completely ‘unromantic’. And Morgan Freeman has more fun than he’s had in awhile.
Hitchiker’s Guide will probably make a profit even before video. It’ll tap out at $55-$60 million just stateside, and I’m sure it’ll do very well in England and other parts of Europe. Again, only $45 million plus $15 million in marketing to recover, so an easily reachable $120 million worldwide gross will put this one in the break even catagory. And of course, tons of people will buy the DVD, fans of the books and fans of the movie. As long as they keep the budgets under $50 million, there is no reason not to keep making these.
Monster In Law cost $60 + marketing, so it’ll have to have a decent second week hold to break even before video.
Not sure how much Kicking & Screaming cost, but I can’t imagine more than $50 million. Ironically, I saw that months ago at a test screening, and they obviously ignored my advice to tone down the downright cruelty of Phil’s character in the third act. Although, Having read a synopsis, I like the new ending better.
Scott Mendelson
A Jack Napier citing? Shocking. I have to agree
partially with Joe. The middle east thing has to
have some part to all of this. Yet, I would be
willing to bet some people are just waiting for
Star Wars. Think about it. If you do not go out to
a theatre that much. Would you not wait for the one
movie you, unless your first name starts with Stella
and your last ends with Boy, to see the last of the
best saga ever? Who wants to see a flick set in
the Middle East back during a time period people
could careless about. When they can go see SW just
two weekends later.
I did laugh, however, when my new Rolling Stone
arrived. They jumped the gun on that Orlando Bloom
hype. Poor bastards.
I doubt that many non-movie obsessive types actually knew it was set in the Middle East to be quite frank.
They didn’t exactly describe the plot very well in the trailer.
However, i think Monster-in-Law should do quite well over the next couple of weeks as there really isn’t any other movie like it. Star Wars? nope. Madagascar? Maybe they can send the kids. The Longest Yard? I’m sure the older audience will skip that one.
…and, I think my feelings towards The Longest Yard were just solidified when I always typed “The Whole Nine Yards”…. and I never want to have to think about that trash ever again.
OK, is the glass half-empty or half-full? Did “Monster-in-Law” open at the high end, or the low end, or expectations? And, inevitably, the question that I’m not sure we can answer with any degree of certainty: How many people might have bought tickets to “Monster-in-Law” (instead of deciding to wait for the DVD release)as recently as two years ago?
Monster In Law was right in the pocket, Joe.
And I am comfortable saying that the box office was not much affected by DVD. Don’t forget that there was another $20 million opening comedy in the marketplace this weekend too.
People were turned away at the Monster in law showing i saw–many arrived w/o reserved tickets and had to buy for later showings.
It was no work of art, but my older relatives liked it, and it seems to be getting good word of mouth, whereas Kingdom of Heaven is not.
Word of mouth on the way out of the multiplex yesterday was that Kicking and Screaming rubbed many people the wrong way–kinda pointlessly mean/vicious (even though most like Will Ferrel alot in his other flicks). It wasn’t the Bad News Bears.
“Unleashed” is a Rogue (Focus) title only in the US. Producers might have pre-sold territorial rights to get the pic filmed.
How are we gauging word of mouth here? I remember some people insisting that Sin City would have excellent word of mouth because “the theater I saw it in was full and everyone loved it and clapped at the end.”
Stella: Yes, and don’t forget, it changed the face of filmmaking as we know it.
I am Joe Leydon, and I feed myself Lean Cuisine.
24 million for MIL despite some really crushing reviews & low tomatos rating must be pretty good word of mouth.
a couple influential critics in My Very Large City bashed MIL repeatedly over the past two weeks–even when it wasn’t on the spot for review.
i didn’t think it was great, but it’s doing pretty good thus far for a movie that some have called the worst movie of 2005.
and Sin City has paid for itself, I thought it would be ~100 million, but looks more like 75 until the DVD release. Time will tell re. Sin City’s influence; I agree with Mr. Dooley on that one (re. filmmakers) from what’s been said about it by directors/writers.
No offense Lota, but I don’t think Monster-In-Laws opening proves that is has good word of mouth. Don’t we have to wait until at least the second weekend to determine that? Plenty of movies that get awful reviews and a low rating at rottentomatoes open well. That certainly is nothing new or extraordinary. I’m not saying Sin City was financially unsuccessful, but it didn’t have strong word of mouth.
Given the trashing MIL has had–certain critics going off their Spot topic just to slam it again (don’t see this too often!), I AM surprised it hasn’t affected it more in a negative sense, is all I am saying–if indeed the est. holds up to the numbers, or it is actually exceeded, I still think 24M is great. Look at KOH and the other big pictures with lukewarm openings despite decent enough reviews, certainly better than 17% on Tomatoes! Yeah after three weeks, it will be easier to see how audiences perceive it.
I said SIn City has, and has had good word of mouth on creative side. And I bet DVD sales will be big.
Do note… New Line did a sneak last Sunday to build word of mouth. So there was some room for that.
But I still say that opening weekend has almost nothing to do with word of mouth (or critics on big movies), but with the marketing. And the advantage MIL has and will have is that audiences came to see it based on the trailer and TV ads… which were EXACTLY what the movie was like. If you like those spots, you have to like the film (98%). If you don’t like the spots, you will NOT like the movie.
I would have to strongly agree. Opening weekend essentially has nothing to do with word of mouth.
This is what it’s come to…cat care.
I think its that time for registering.
I hope thats something I really don’t need. Give me mortgage advice and poker back!!!!
never power
wall poster
calorie table
nutrition
nutritional
teaching
lessons
http://www.eatrightcards.com/_bpages/8401.cfm?