MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Hide & Go Seek Blockbuster Numbers

Well, at least we know what Sam Rubin thinks!
There is a minor skirmish in the Critics Wars this summer, as Steven Spielberg and Paramount has made the decision to go 2004 and to sit on War of The Worlds as though it was an egg in need of a lot of protection.
Well, kind of.
And that

Be Sociable, Share!

51 Responses to “Hide & Go Seek Blockbuster Numbers”

  1. Wrecktum says:

    It’s all inside-baseball, Poland. Critics should be professional enough to deal with late screenings. As long as the dailies can safely make their deadlines, then I can’t imagine it making a damn bit of difference.
    If said professional critics take it out on the film just because Sam Ruben saw it a week before they did, then that says a LOT about the state of film criticism in the country today, does it not?

  2. Terence D says:

    A lot of critics crying about access. But hiding it does scream that it is not that good. That is perception.

  3. bicycle bob says:

    if u have it, show it. if u don’t try to create buzz with what u don’t see. or have ur star parade around with a starlet and jump on a couch.

  4. LesterFreed says:

    How can you go wrong with Spielberg, some aliens and Cruise? I haven’t even read one review on this yet but I’ll see it

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    “Will critics and writers take it out on the movie? Unlikely.”
    This is, quite possibly, the most naive thing I have ever read by a person who prides himself on being a savvy industry observer.

  6. bicycle bob says:

    i don’t think this guy is too savvy. i don’t care what his rep is

  7. Chester says:

    bicycle bob, do you realize that you just said Dave Poland is not too savvy? No problem with that, but I just wanted to make sure you understood what you were saying.

  8. bicycle bob says:

    actually i’m talking about this rubin guy. dave is as savvy as it gets. except for his love of the rundown.

  9. LesterFreed says:

    Basically the pre marketing to this movie is raisin eye brows all over the place. But i have to think that this isn’t incompetence since it is a 200$ million dollar Spielberg movie. They have to have some kind of plan. Right?

  10. Chester says:

    “They have to have some kind of plan. Right?”
    Lester, I’m sure we’d all like to think so. But what’s the plan? So far it’s just been flashing the words “Cruise” and “Spielberg” in the trailers and commercials. They have yet to put on display anything really special, original or innovative about the film, and I for one am concerned that they seem to be relying a little too smugly on name-brand appeal alone this close to the release date.

  11. Wrecktum says:

    It’s Paramount. ‘Nuff said. When was the last time they ran a great marketing campaign?

  12. Terence D says:

    I would hope a production of this magnitude has a plan. Otherwise every exec in that studio and the production office should be canned. The words Cruise only sell Star magazine and Oprah shows now.

  13. bicycle bob says:

    kinda reminds me when they didn’t show godzilla. look how good that one turned out

  14. Mark says:

    I’ll keep having faith in Cruise until he really disappoints. He hasn’t since Far and Away.

  15. Drew says:

    Were you covering films when JURASSIC PARK came out, David? I’m not trying to be snarky… I genuinely don’t know when you started writing about the business.
    This is the EXACT same pattern of release that he used for the first JURASSIC PARK. I was working at Universal that summer, and even the employees of the studio didn’t get to see it until five days before release. There were no photos of dinosaurs anywhere. The only pre-release reviews were in the trades and in TIME and NEWSWEEK, which had to be very careful about what they did or did not disclose.
    I’ve heard over and over that this year is 1993 all over again for Spielberg, which means he’ll probably take the exact opposite approach for VENGEANCE, showing it early and often if it ends up being the film he thinks it’s going to be. WOTW was always about hiding the big stuff as long as possible. Hell, remember how they handled E.T. before it came out? Most audiences didn’t even know what E.T. stood for, and they had no idea what to expect from the film itself.
    I think he just likes the hide-and-seek, and I don’t believe it’s about disrespect at all.

  16. Lota says:

    “Basically the pre marketing to this movie is raisin eye brows all over the place.”
    whew. for a minute there I was thinking I was very unobservant when last in LA. I didn’t see anyone with raisin eyebrows, not even studio boot licking toadies.
    Then I realised Lester forgot the “g”. Raising eyebrows! Ohhhhh.
    Doesn’t seem to be raising eyebrows does it–I mean it’s just updated Signs + a little more xenophobia + Tom Cruise in the mix.
    It might be good, I love HG Wells inspired stuff hence my name, but it just seems overwrought somehow.
    And the main poster sure does look like the cover of a L Ron Hubbard book. Not good.
    I’ll see it anyway.

  17. Wrecktum says:

    Great points, Drew. Is Poland complaining because he hasn’t been asked to see it yet?

  18. jeffmcm says:

    It’s hard to imagine a movie more xenophobic than Signs. Remember, Spielberg’s a big old lefty, his movie will not go that route. (please note discussion of politics in terms of movie content).

  19. Twitchy says:

    I know about M. Night’s political/religious leanings but how was SIGNS particularly more xenophobic than any other film from the genre? I thought that first WotW Superbowl teaser had a serious xenophobic vibe going on.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Granted the alien invaders genre is inherently xenophobic, but there are degrees, and this was a movie about how satisfying it would be to find a home invader and beat the crap out of him with a baseball bat. Add in the fact that they were filming the movie in the fall of 2001.

  21. David Poland says:

    Jurassic Park was a different era of marketing… and at the time it came out, it was truly one of a kind.
    The point is valid. SS might be living in his past and unable to see the new trajectory.
    And Joe… really… I have some critics I don’t think much of, but do you really think they would raise forces against this film because they weren’t in the first group of viewers? Seems self-destructive. Of course, if the film turned out to be borderline, it could tip things.
    I remember being at that Godzilla junket… creepy. I thought the film was overly abused, even though it was not very good. But you could almost feel the rage grow as the day progressed.

  22. joefitz84 says:

    Why let a few see it and run reviews early but not let other respected journos see it and review it? Not a good strategy. Just weird.

  23. Joe Leydon says:

    David: Go back and read the columns you wrote after the release of the first “Matrix” sequel. Remember the one in which you suggested (not even half-jokingly) that, hey, maybe Warners shouldn’t pre-screen “Revolutions” to people who trashed “Reloaded”? Well, maybe Paramount simply is trying a variation of the game plan you suggested. That is, they

  24. Joe Leydon says:

    P.S. Dave, you do realize, don’t you, that after you’ve bitched like this in print, anything critical you say about the film will be taken with entire shakers of salt?

  25. Anonymous says:

    Joe, why you bustin his balls? We all give him a pass for his huge defense of the Matrix sequels. Time has healed all wounds.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    You mean, his huge defense of Reloaded and his embarrassed avoidance of Revolutions.

  27. Angelus21 says:

    I can’t even think about those movies. They ruined a great first film for me. Keanu has never been cuter.

  28. PastePotPete says:

    I don’t know anything about WOTW other than what I’ve seen in the trailers/commercials and from the novel, but I’m beginning to get a real bored vibe from it. Perhaps there’s more to it than I can think of, but it doesn’t look like there’s much meat there(and I say that as a fan of the genre and Spielberg).
    Maybe it’s Cruise’s increasing public insanity burning me out. I dunno. But doing this doesn’t increase my hope for it. Hopefully that’ll put me in a position to be pleasantly surprised.

  29. Angelus21 says:

    Read the book first if you want boring. I hope SS really gives us something different.

  30. KamikazeCamel says:

    I don’t think WotW is going to be anything like Signs. Signs was very claustrophobic movie where you saw the aliens for all of about 10 seconds. I think they’re keeping the aliens out of the WotW ads and trailers (for the most part anyway) to keep a sense of mystery. Spielberg has said that he thinks the whole don’t show mentality is the way to go.
    On the review front, I’m all for reviews-at-the-last-minute thing if the movie is reliant on something the makers don’t wish to get out.
    Take Scream 3 for instance (two Scream references in one day, yay for me), they didn’t allow critics to see it until basically the day it was being released and even then they were absolutely forbidden from releasing any minute details. And if critics hated it (which they did) they would probably may have given away bits just to punish it.
    Having said that, Scream 3 is sort of like the Showgirls of the horror genre, non? Obviously it is a comedy in the form of a silly horror movie! What better way to subvert the genre even more than to make a film in a series that changed the genre a completely non-horror movie.
    …(be quiet)

  31. BluStealer says:

    Signs and Worlds are going to be two different movies. Signs was about a family on a farm. Worlds is about inner city people running away from the invaders. The core is the same. Aliens come and attack. But I don’t think water is going to kill the Spielberg aliens. Just a guess.

  32. Terence D says:

    I thought Signs was the worst of the M Night movies.

  33. moviefreek says:

    “But I don’t think water is going to kill the Spielberg aliens. Just a guess.”
    I take it you haven’t read the H.G. Wells novel, eh?

  34. BluStealer says:

    I haven’t and if what you are getting at is true then I don’t think I even want to see this.

  35. LesterFreed says:

    If this be anything like Signs than we all in big, big trouble. So is Spielberg.

  36. VGM says:

    I thought “Signs” was nifty. “The Village,” on the other hand, I still haven’t decided if I was really clever for figuring it out the first time William Hurt spoke; MNS was insulting my intelligence by making it so ridiculously obvious; or he was just being really, really friggin’ lazy.

  37. Lota says:

    “God’s great plan” for Mel aside, Signs was considerably influenced by WOTW, book and movie, ending (of the aliens) included. The difference between farm & city is kinda immaterial IMUHO.
    The new WOTW may really good, but I really hated the xenophobic preachiness of Signs and the ending, so I hope SPielberg hasn’t upped the cheese but advance word on the ending is not what I’d like.
    It would be a more interesting movie if the humans lose big-style, but no chance. Tom Cruise must win.
    It will be interesting to see if Spielberg is more faithful to the original novel, which differed from the 1953 movie in many significant ways including social commentary & gross differences in technology between the aliens and earthlings.
    The social commentary in Signs was Fundamentalist, I do hope there is less of this and more of Wells in Spielberg interpretation of WOTW.

  38. Mark says:

    Signs was terrible.

  39. Mark says:

    Nifty? Wow? Get a life.

  40. Lota says:

    I thought Signs was terrible, but I can’t help it when I see the WOTW trailer, that I think of Signs.
    Maybe instead of stabbing/killing/eliminating aliens Tom will just try to get them “CLear” then we can all be friends.

  41. KamikazeCamel says:

    I think Mark needs to settle down. Geez. It’s only an alien movie!
    I thought Signs was actually really good. Had a great atmosphere, had some very scary moments, some inspired moments, technically it was very good and while the very end was a misfire it didn’t bother me that much,
    The birthday party scene scared the pants off of me (and everyone else in a cinema of 500)

  42. VGM says:

    Drudge has latched onto this story.

  43. hatchling says:

    I’m so turned off by this film now, even though I had been looking forward to making it my summer concession to mindless big event movies.
    Tom is just getting weirder and weirder, with his Scientology cult out in the open so boldly, and his cult approved bride to be… his head splitting uncontrolled inappropriate laughter, sofa jumping and Steven’s cowtowing to it all. I’ve got no choice now. My personal little boycott of WOW won’t mean a thing to anyone else, but I’ll sleep easier at night knowning I didn’t buy into the mess. Besides, Dakota Fanning is annoying.
    It wont matter what the critics say today or next week about the quality of the film. No one under 30 pays any attention any more. The younger audience choses to attend movies based on hype.

  44. You-Go says:

    It’s called foreplay, guys.
    After almost ten years of internet spoiling our movie experience, Uncle Steven, thinking he’s got lightening in a bottle, is merely trying to save a few experiences for the audience. There might be a big spoiler or two that he doesn’t want revealed. I think the embargo is very much in line with the marketing. For some reason he really wants us going into this one only knowing the first 13 minutes. And you have to admit, as we move closer, the Tom/Katie thing is starting to push away and the possibility of a new Spielberg classic really looms.
    “AI” or “Private Ryan?” We’re about to find out, kids.

  45. LesterFreed says:

    In case you were under a rock or something but the movie is based on a book written over 100 years ago. And yeah it was a pretty popular work.

  46. Mark says:

    I do not think there has been anything weirder or more strange than the very public meltdown of Tom Cruise. I think it will effect the box office of this movie.

  47. brett says:

    ” “AI” or “Private Ryan?” We’re about to find out, kids. ”
    In the furture, to avoid confusion use ‘1941’ as the example of ‘bad Spielberg’.

  48. Martin S says:

    Everyone is overthinking this issue – Spielberg is openly pissed about the TomKat uber-coverage that’s predominated the press junket by the mainstream media. His only way of getting back is by clamping down on the film review itself.
    It’s his way of saying, “if you weren’t interested in covering the film in the first place, then I’m not going to let you cover it until the last possible moment”.
    If it was a film quality issue, he would’ve had Paramount call AICN weeks ago threatening to kill Harry’s deal if they ran one more review. Instead, they’ve put up two more in the past week.

  49. You-Go says:

    Sorry Brett,
    I did really love “AI.” I just really want the level of success and public embrace for this one to be on the classic scale. That said, “1941” and “Always” are better than any Michael Bay film.

  50. jeffmcm says:

    Hook is the worst.

  51. bicycle bob says:

    this may be another 1941/hook.

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