April 25, 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
Blaming dvds is just wrong. Can we blame the product? The crappy movies? The crappier acting? The shoddy productions? How many great films have come out this year?
I’ve never been able to understand Dave’s reflexive hostility to the notion that ticket price inflation should be figured into the equation when computing box-office records. It’s just another way of stating the obvious: Seventy years ago, fifty years ago, twenty years ago — hell, even five years ago — ticket prices were cheaper. Meaning that more people bought tickets to a movie that grossed $50 million in 1980 than bought tickets to a movie that grossed $50 million in 2005. Meaning that, yes, speaking strictly in terms of ticket sales, “Gone With the Wind” very likely still is the most popular, more successful film of all time. IT’S BASIC MATH. What’s the big deal? Why does this simple, irrefutable fact of life piss Dave off?
I’ll have the combo please…
Overpriced tickets for evening movies.
Shortened dvd window.
And a general lack of movies that people want to see.
i’ll take lack of movies anyone wants to pay to see. 10 bucks now to see a below average film?
I can kind of see David’s point in not using inflation for ticket prices. I mean, when you seen companies post earnings for investors, you don’t see THEM adjusting numbers for inflation to compare past years, do you?
The whole equalizer for these box office numbers is the cost of the film. THAT tells you more of the story. I mean, SURE, Van Helsing opened to over $50 million, but guess what? It cost over $170 million. And more and more journalists are reporting the costs, too. And speaking of Gone with the Wind, do YOU know what the COST of that film was, in relation to inflation? I’ll bet we’re talking over $200 million.
As with this “quality” thing, ENOUGH! Come on, do we really believe that box office grosses are related to quality? That is such a cliche at this point that just has no relevance. Eternal Sunshine was probably the best film of Jim Carrey’s career, but guess what? It was also one of his lowest grossers. LesterFreed, you gonna tell me that Shrek 2 AND Passion of the Christ were the best films, last year? Or that the Grinch was the best film of 2000? Or that The Phantom Menace was the best film of 1999? Come on, let’s get off this argument, already.
We all have short memories, here, but let me point you to the last year, when there was much talk of a prolonged box office slump – 1991. This was the year that gave us Silence of the Lambs, JFK, Beauty and the Beast, Thelma and Louise, Dead Again, and Terminator 2. Hmmmm, real low quality films, there, for sure.
Here is what i will tell you. You may knock Passion and Shrek 2 but people wanted to see them. They were entertained or thought provoked. Knock em down all you want but thats the truth. What movie this year have people wanted to see? Star Wars? Sure. Anything else? Going back to january? People are so desperate they’ll even see Madisgascar.
Last year was a baseball player that hit .380, thanks mainly to Passion, Shrek, and Spidey.
This year that ball player seems to be hitting about .365.
Frankly I just don’t get all the hoopla surrounding the “box office slump.”
There are many viable and logical reasons as to why 2005 is a bit “down” as compared to last year … but is it really all that big of a story?
It’s a big story because by the end of the year, all the theaters will close down due to a lack of business.
At least that’s what I gather from the articles.
LesterFreed,
You miss my point. I have no doubt that people wanted to see Shrek 2 and Passion of the Christ, but does that mean they were quality films? That just means they were well-marketed and had good word of mouth. Again, not measures of QUALITY.
Quality films open well and open bad. They are enjoyed and reviled by the public. My point is that there is NO correlation between quality and success. What, are you gonna tell me that about four years ago, the most talented musical artists, out there, were Britney Spears and Eminim only because the “public” bought their records the most?
Gee, I can remember, just a couple of years ago, that the original Joe Millionaire had the highest ratings average for the T.V. season. Guess that was a “quality” show, huh?
Sorry to rant, but I am just so tired of hearing this “quality” argument. I love movies and many of my favorites were not actually hits. It’s a business, people, and just not very well run, right now.
Geoff wrote, “I can kind of see David’s point in not using inflation for ticket prices. I mean, when you seen companies post earnings for investors, you don’t see THEM adjusting numbers for inflation to compare past years, do you?”
Sure, Geoff, that may be how companies choose present their reports. But that’s not what the outside analysts will have to say, which is ultimately all that counts. To state that adjustments for inflation are not critically important in the business world is just plain naive. Watch what happens to a company’s stock price if it maintains the exact same dollar-for-dollar earnings from one year to the next.
I thought Shrek 2 was quality. And even if it wasn’t a good film the first one was great and that made people want to see the second one. What sequel has come out this year that people are racing to see? The summer movies have been BLAH and the spring and winter? Gross.
the problem is quality films have a longer shelf life than crappy films. its common sense really. batman begins will hang around and keep making money. the chronicles of riddick disappeared within 3 weeks.
Geoff that is really just your opinion. But those higher grossers had to have some kind of quality to keep filling theatres week after week. Maybe they’re not your cup of tea but they hit with the general public. I’d take Shrek over Madigascar anyday of the week. And tell me the Passion of this year? Nothing.
Obviously, digs at Passion and Shrek 2 are my opinion, but I think the argument still holds. Just because a movie has legs or good word of mouth does not indicate that it is a film of “quality.” I have seen very, very good films that I KNOW people enjoyed having pretty shaky legs.
People forget that as beloved by a lot of people as Spiderman 2 was, last year, it still made about half of its grosses in its first six days. I don’t consider that a dig at its quality. And I know that a lot of us could make a damn good case that My Big Fat Greek Wedding was just a cheap-looking 90 minute sitcom and that film had amazing legs.
Quality is a very subjective term and to correlate it to objective numbers just does not work. For all these pundits to make this case that ALL OF A SUDDEN, the quality of films dropped, this year, and that is leading to a box office downturn is ridiculous. Especially when marketing plays such an important part in how these films do.
How about entertaining instead of quality? Movies are subjective anyway. But you don’t see many unentertaining movies hold on for long at the box office.
Thank you, Terence D!
Yeah, entertaining is subjective, too, but it’s still much more obvious to figure out how it applies to a mass audience than “quality.”
Of course, did anybody find Passion entertaining? Got me. In fact, LesterFreed, most of the people I know who did rush to see it, saw it out of a sense of religious obligation, like going to church. Really a pretty singular phenomemon for moviegoing.
tough to be entertained by watching the lord and savior get the piss beat outta him for 2 hours. but it still needed to be seen
“Quality” is a subjective word. I think when people say “Quality” they mean movies with a want-to-see value coupled with great word of mouth.
(In baseball a “quality” start means: “A starting pitcher is credited with a quality start if he pitches at least six innings and allows three or fewer earned runs.” This correlates into an ERA of as much as 4.50. Which is league average. In other words, the meaning of the word “quality” in this context is “average.”
wrectum? damn near killed em?
Very good point, Wrecktum.
But I think a point that is being missed by most pundits, and I think Dave has made this one, is that box office legs are just not what they used to be.
Movies, quality or not, just have very small windows to find their audiences, nowadays.
It is a much different time and place than 20 years and even 5 years ago. Prices have a lot to do with it. The cost value of paying to see a movie or waiting for the dvd is now a factor in decisions. I know myself. I would rather wait and buy the 10$ dvd than see some of the movie in theatres.
How does anyone explain the success of Napolian Dynomite? This was a teen/youth film that lasted for months in theaters. I have never read about any pirating problem for ND. Why? I would guess that teens are #1 pirates. Yet not for ND. why?
Hollywood in a prolonged slump? Don’t blame DVD or the humble VHS. This is why there’s a slump:
(1) Rely on franchises, remakes, and sequels
(2) Hype all of them to death
(3) Buy lots of TV advertising
(4) Open these pictures in 3,000+ theaters
The result is akin to strip-mining — great for Big Media (who own Hollywood now), great for Wall Street, not so great for theaters. Why else would AMC decide now is the time to take over Loews?
Napoleon is what you call “entertaining”. Too bad Hollywood doesn’t make more of those kinds of films. You know, “enjoyable to watch”. Luckily we have remakes of crappy tv shows and remakes of movies from the 1970’s. Thank Hollywood everyone.
On the issue of adjusting for inflation…
It’s fine if you want to make a list of how popular films are. But it is irrelevant to this discussion and leads to comparing apples and orange marmalade.
No studio does its profit and loss based on what movies made in 2000 or 1970 or 1939.
Marketing is a cost, the same as film stock. Foreign box office is money, the same as it is at home. Domestic box office is not a loss leader to sell DVDs, but rather a significant percentage of revenues (eliminated, virtually every studio movie would lose money.)
Going back to pre-1960 box office is like talking about England being the strongest military ever because when they owned the seas… blah blah blah. It was a different industry then. And it is quite a different industry today than it was just five years ago.
Electricity. Sound. Color. Talent Independence. Rental video. Sell-thru DVD. These have been the six great industry-shaking milestones in film history. The speed of video to DVD is striking.
But a big part of tomorrow’s column will be about how the next big step will, by its very nature, significantly cut into the total number of DVD sell-thru dollars, which will mark the first step forward by the industy to cut income… which makes it a very interesting future indeed.
I think you forgot a SEVENTH milestone: Introduction of television.
Well the foreign markets are a huge part of the business now and wasn’t a few years ago. There is a reason Brad Pitt gets 20 million bucks.
If I read the blasted “Hollywood makes crappy movies” bs one more time. I might just have to go and find release schedules from 1995, 1985, 1975, and back to shut this asinine bit of debate up. There will always be crap and their will always be greatness. If any of you tauting this ridiculous argument paid attention to sports. This will become very obvious to you. The problem is; no one puts greatness into perspective. You cant have a great film every week. GREAT lives in a rarified air that just has to come together natural. All of these different factours converging to make something matter to many and last for a long, long time. To blame Hollywood for their release schedule this year as a reason the box-office is in a supposed slump (Let me just type this one time. HARRY F’N POTTER people!). Just shows your limited viewpoints in this area. Greatness happens every day. Dont bitch because you are too oblivious to find it.
Actually you are totally wrong. Hollywood doesn’t always make entertaining movies. It is simple economics. If you don’t give your consumers what they want, they will not buy your product. They will buy it on the low end (thats video/dvd/tv). Hollywood has to look itself in the mirror and dedicate itself to making products/films that their consumers/public want.
I did not crunch the numbers but if you move Harry Potter 3 from last years summer line up and back to it’s normal Nov release, what would the difference be. Maybe the box office will “correct?” itself when Potter 4 gets released this year.
With regards to the legs issue, I just believe that there is some much damn product out there that these days you need a fucking hummer to go the distance. Every weekend there is a potemtial ‘event’ movie to stake it’s claim at the box office. Breathing room is less, as the technology to make a star wars or lord of the rings and release one of them every two weeks is at a depreciating cost. Zathura, HP 4, Narnia, and others I’m sure I’ve missed all have huge break out potential and all could not have been made just a few years ago.
To thrill an audience now is even more demanding thus the WOW FACTOR seems to have ebbed if not disapated.
Movies have a harder job now with more competing product, and in any business that I can think of, the market will only expand so far. Studios and persons crying the demise of cinema need to face some hard cold facts:
1) There will always be only so many people who go the movies. The Titanics and Passions of the Christ will be rare, few, and far between.
2) To expect that the box office will automatically go up every single year is plain fucking nuts.
3) That the only people who can eventually cause the demise of cinema are the moviemakers themselves, because people are going to get tired of reimagined product, remade classics(an oxymoronic statement if I ever heard one), and “the best movie of the year” proclamations when it is’nt even fucking July.
If you must redo the old, be new about it.
If you must retell a story, give me fresh perspective.
If you must take my $10, give a an experience.
I hope I love Batman when I see it. I hope War/Worlds knocks my sucks off the way Independence Day did. I hope Land of the Dead scares the shit out of me. I’m aching for an experience.
Cinema is’nt dead, I agree with Dave. But sometimes there are things that are worse than dead, and that’s when it’s mediocre.
Land of the Dead easily has some of the better gore in a film in years. IT has some great shots in it that led to the Dawn remake to having a Director’s Cut DVD. Just remember: Romero does not make horrour films. Sure. It has people getting eaten by the walking dead, but it’s really not about scaring you. Especially this flick, which deals with what it means to be human. Or what exactly humanity becomes in a really shitty situation.
How does it work for the Dawn remake DVD to have been inspired by Land of the Dead?
L&DB and Bulldog, you guys do a great job of making my points about the whole “quality” issue, better than I did.
As for this correlation between box office and orginality at the movies, I am not so sure. Box office was certainly on a steady rise, during the late ’80’s, when it seems like every year, there was a new installment of Police Academy, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or Halloween. And these were not lavish, let’s-top-the-original sequels, either. These were cheapo knockoffs.
But I am, for one, am getting sick of the TV show adaptations, and it seems like a vast majority of them do not do that well. But every few years, one does blockbuster business, like SWAT or Rugrats, so they keep churning them out.
I basically skipped most of the replies in here cause it’s the same stuff over and over again.
But, can I just point out… if Gone With The Wind were released today it would probably top out at about $100mil. People are cynicle like that.
i don’t know what numbers u look at but swat is not what anyone would call a blockbuster
If “Gone With the Wind” were filmed today, it more likely would be a TNT miniseries.
Don’t sell Gone With the Wind short. Only problem with it today would be they would get Bret Ratner to direct.
SWAT made just about $117 million, with an August 2003 release date. It made just under $200 million worldwide. Sure sounds like a blockbuster to me.
As features are increasingly tailored toward the brain-dead 14-year-old, more and more of us pre-geezers are turning back to the tube. Why should I pay ten smackers to watch Ashton Kutcher drool on himself, when any five minutes of “Gilmore Girls” or “Monk” or “Boston Legal” are better-written, better-acted and more entertaining than 75% of today’s theatrical films, and they’re free.
TV is better than movies now. Those FX shows, HBO, Lost, 24, all better than features. The tide has turned.
people want to be watch entertaining and quality stuff and right now thats on television. ten yrs ago u were a hack if u went to tv.
Jeff, I stated that GORE in Land got an R. While the GORE in Dawn, had to be put out in a Director’s Cut DVD, that has barely any gore compared to LAND. If that doesnt make sense to you. I will walk you through it again, but this time using A, B, and C!
“quality” or even “entertaining” probably aren’t the right words, but there are movies audiences feel compelled to see and movies audiences don’t feel compelled to see whatever their reasons may be.
“Don’t sell Gone With the Wind short. Only problem with it today would be they would get Bret Ratner to direct.”
…that was a really pathetic joke. Not only because it was a cheap shot but also because it’s stupid and you know it.
There is an ihteresting blurb in LATimes business section… Movie gallery is predicting that future movie rental income may decline due to weak new releases. DP’s nightmare may be near!
Sorry Camel. I call them like I see them. And if they remade it today you would probably see Bret Ratner directing. Salma Hayek starring of course.
u forgot that nora ephron and joel schumacher would have first say on who directs the new gone with the wind. they’ll probably give ratner the new godfather. jackie chan as fredo.
I don’t know what is worse. Ratner directing X Men 3 or him doing a remake of Gone With the Wind. We will see one for sure. Let us all hold hands and pray we don’t see number 2.
I repeat: “GWTW” would be a miniseries today. And not because of quality issues: It would have to be a miniseries because today’s attention-deficient audiences wouldn’t put up with a feature film that long. (Remember “Scarlett,” the “sequel” to “GWTW”? It wound up being filmed as a miniseries in 1994. Not terribly memorable, though Timothy Dalton wasn’t half-bad as Rhett Butler.)
no way it would be filmed as a mini. theres no money in them. it would have to be on the big screen where they would cut out everything and add in some kids for comic relief
Ratner will still be directing the miniseries.