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
Why don’t you use constant dollars, corrected for inflation?
(or at least corrected for cost of average movie ticket; you must know how to get that stat)
Constant dollars corrected for inflation are a game, not a barometer used in real life.
I don’t trust the MPAA figure for average ticket price either.
But what is your point, precisely?
Constant dollars corrected for inflation are universally used by social scientists to compare money from different years. It’s not some sort of “game”. I’m surprised at your defensiveness.
My point is that the numbers would look different if constant dollars were used, or if it were corrected for average seat price. The talk of a “slump” is always combined with anecdotal evidence about people who have stopped going to the movies; in order to dispute the existence of a slump, we need to have some actual statistic about the number of tickets bought per person, not a statistic about the amount of money spent per country.
It wouldn’t be so horrible if people were gradually going to fewer movies. If they are, they’re clearly moving to other sources of entertainment.
It wouldn’t be so horrible if people were gradually going to fewer movies. If they are, they’re clearly moving to other sources of entertainment, not turning their back on Hollywood.
A LOT of people I know have less interest than before in going to theaters to see the new big-budget releases. Aside from the difference in price between the theater and renting the movie in a few months (this difference in price has existed for a while), I and many others get really angry when the movie theaters show ads (not previews, ads. Previews are fine) when they’re supposed to be showing the movie. The ad-induced anger makes the theater experience less enjoyable. Therefore, we watch the movie in some other venue.
If this is happening on a nationwide scale, it isn’t even a bad thing for the industry, because we’re going to see the movie anyway. In fact, in a few years it will lead to the ginormous pre-release marketing campaigns being less important, so the industry won’t need to spend as much money in the arms race to draw people to the opening weekend.
The industry should stop claiming that A) A slump in box-office revenue would be disastrous for the industry, and B) A slump is not going on. These claims might both be false.
Not defensive at all… I require no defense on this. I’m just dealing with the real world I live and work in. This is not a business of social scientists (or brain surgeons neither!)
The problem with the slump talk was not that reporters wrote about a slow leak in theatrical tickets sold. I have long acknowledged that and many of the arguments that have come up have been coming out of my mouth for a long time. But the media argument is not subtle or well defined… it is sledgehammer groupthink… “people aren’t going to the movies.” That is simply not true.
If you can find a more subtle, thoughtful detailed discussion in a major paper, I will be happy to praise it to high heaven. I have, over recent weeks, done my part and laid out a lot of thoughts about the future of the industy on The Hot Button as best I can.
And of course, we don’t need hard stats to see much of this at all. We need stats and studies that we do not have. The current lazy stat is that 70something percent of people prefer DVD. Well, what percentage of those people saw more than 5 movies a year in a theater in the last two years? What percentage of those people are spending money on filmed entertainment by renting or buying DVDs that they were nto buying or renting a few years ago? Is there anything about the in-theater experience that, if improved, might bring them back?
These are hard questions. And the media chooses not to ask them and instead to play “slump” games.
No, it wouldn’t be horrible of fewer people went to the movies… not the point… I have no vested interest in movie theaters. But in a marginally proftable revenue model for movies, theatrical is a high profit area of income that has a legitimate value aside from DVD.
But you miss the central point, Ned… a gain in one area is best, business-wise, as an expansion, not as a replacement.
It IS, in reality, bad for the film business for theatrical to be in more than marginal decline. The DVD sell-thru business has added to the pot much more so that replacing theatrical. That may change further, in either direction. But the best goal has to get both bites of the apple, as well as expanding further by making opportunities for people who are now spending very little to spend more.
For a social scientist, you sure base a lot on personal experience. As someone who has covered this business for a long time, I have learned not to trust what is right around me in general terms. When my teen, skateboarding Santa Monica-based nephew could not be talked into going to a screening of “Lords of Dogtown,” I knew there was a problem. But this same kid told me that he would hate Lord of The Rings and now is a part of the obsession for that film.
Also, there is a reasonable argument that a 30% drop off in revenues for the studios would create more creativity in the films produced. And I can’t say that’s untrue, though traditionally, shit finds its level at any price. But that isn’t the issue, for me, in this discussion. Anything more than a percent or two here and there changes the machinery of the business in powerful ways… and while that might make for less CG, it is also why you are watching ads, which offer marginal income to exhibitors, in movie theaters.
I think I represent a lot of people by saying I don’t care about whether there’s a slump compared to previous years, or not. I just want good movies and will still pay at the theater to see them. I don’t mind watching previews – in fact, I enjoy seeing them so I know what’s coming out soon. However, commercials are the worst thing that ever happened to theaters…they are always played so loud as if we were all deaf. I can understand why people stay away, but it’s not necessarily because of increasing ticket prices – it’s the commercials. At my multiplex in L.A., the price has not gone up in three years…but there are plenty of people who will pay $14 at the ArcLight to avoid watching commercials.
DP == according to your numbers this is the SECOND SLUMP in the past 10 years( 1998 the First) Any comments on what is differnt and/or similar?
Keep in mind that the more expensive ArcLight also discourages the sort of audience that talks throughout the movie, answers cellphones, etc.
They’re not going to pay the premium if they’re not interested enough in the movie to watch it quietly.
I worry that I’m sounding elitist right now.
Here in Austin, there is a chain of theaters called the Drafthouse. They take out every other row of seats and they serve a full restaurant menu along with the show, including alcohol. In addition, they maintain an adult’s only atmosphere. Younger kids are only allowed in with a parent. They don’t show ads, and they will remove a noisy individual or group of people. In general, they have tried to make coming to the theater more enjoyable and they have had remarkable success. They have lots of special events and in general it is a very cool place. In the four years I have lived here, they have gone from one small theater downtown, to 4 theaters in Austin (3 are multiscreen theaters) and a couple theaters in other cities. In addition, they don’t charge a premium for their tickets. Their ticket price is the same or slightly below the regular theaters in the area. For many of my friends, they will almost always try to go see their movie at the Drafthouse rather than a regular theater.
oldman – Titanic… $601 million domestic
I feel bad for Dave. No one believes him except for some of us.
OK, everybody: If you believe in Dave, clap your hands! Come on! Just like you did for Tinkerbell!
I believe in the numbers. So I guess I’m with Dave. Clap!!
Clap!!
Slump or no slump the movies of ’05 really haven’t been that good so far. I hope the rest of the summer picks up and the Fall season comes thru in a big way.
Ironically, I would say that over 70% of industry people now get it. But the press won’t let it go.
And there is nothing to believe… just black and white figures on a piece of paper or screen.
Looking at DP’s numbers, I just realized an interesting pattern. From 1996-98 dbo was approx $2.6 bil; which then jumped in two steps 20% to $3.2 bil during 99-01; then exploded 25% to new level of $4.2 bil in 2002, where it has remained to present. Instead of dwelling upon the slump problem; a more interesting question might be has dbo reached a saturation point?
Figures or not, some people refuse to believe it. And it is right there in front of them. They need to be beat over the head.
The whole inflation deal seems incredibly silly to bring up because not once during any of the articles about the slump did they talk about inflation. They worked simply and purely with today’s money and statistics. So why should it be any different now.
But I really do think that the slowdown (which may be slightly more appropriate than slump) was probably just about the films themselves. Not that there wasn’t a Passion, Farenheit, Shrek 2, whatever, but that there weren’t that many things that people wanted to rush out and see and because they know they will be out on DVD in 5 months or so they don’t need to worry. If it’s not a movie that needs to be seen at the cinema then why spend upwards of $20…
Well, I hate to jump into the fray on this, but I think the confusion comes from David comparing 2005 as a whole from Jan-June to other years during the same period rather than week for week (which is what most press have been doing when declaring a slump). Fact is that 2005 had a fairly steady spring. Even though there was only one big movie with Hitch and no Passion of the Christ, movies were generally making more money then they normally would in the spring. BUt then, by comparison, the first two months of summer, except for Star Wars, have been down.
I’d love to see a comparison of May/June for this year compared to May/June from previous years, as I think that will be a lot more obvious of a “slump,” at least in terms of summer box office, compared to past years (including 2001). If I see these movies, only then would I concede that David is right with his defense of the box office.
BTW, ticket prices, at least here in NYC, are up about 10% from where they were in 2001. Not sure how the average ticket price is comparatively.
Oh, I also should add that we’re looking at what could be the worst August and Septembers in a long time ahead…besides Dukes of Hazzard and maybe Brothers Grimm, are there any other movies that people might want to see in there? Maybe this will be a good time for the independents to make some money.
its been a real bad bad yr for indie movies.
The press smells blood in the water. That means quality stories. Even if they’re not right. But when has that ever stopped the press?
Slump or not I see a lot of digits in that number and that’s a lot of moolah.
Dave, hate to call you out on this one, but Titanic was not the reason for a slump from ’97 to ’98. Real simple reason why: Titanic made more than half of its money IN 1998. Remember when you were writing all of those columns of skepticism towards Paramount and their box office reporting? I believe most of them were in the spring of ’98.
What are the predictions for the Island this weekend? I’ve noticed that Nick has disappeared now that all the horrible reviews are in.
the island. gonna say 32 million.
I’ve been seeing some comments about the movie theater experience, and I cannot stress the importance of this enough, nor can I be more baffled by why the studios and/or theater chains choose to ignore this aspect.
Everyone I know–EVERYONE–with a range of every and all moviegoing tastes, from big-budget popcorn buyers to indie stalwarts, has a problem with the moviegoing experience as it is.
Lots of it has to do with the enforced commercials. No one ever laughs, no one appreciates them, and they end up impacting an audience negatively. I know, this is a broad generalization, but I have been to quite a number of different theaters in the NY/NJ metro area and my experience has always been the same: the commercials annoy and/or outright anger people. But there must be SOME reason they’re forced down our throats-the companies whose bad judgement is foisted upon us must be seeing SOME increase in sales, no? Otherwise, why continue with this practice? So I’m all for getting rid of the commercials, but we need to figure out a viable way for the theater chains to realize we hate them so, so much, and that it’s worth more to NOT feature them than to feature them.
The other aspect is the lack of ushers. REAL ushers–not the pimply-faced sixteen year olds who OCCASIONALLY help people find seats in overcrowded theaters (AFTER the movie has already begun). I’m talking ushers who stand in the theater and quickly and efficiently eliminate any infractions to the moviegoing experience. Talking on your cell phone? “Excuse me sir, please leave the theater”. Text messaging on your cell phone so that the light of it is a distracting beacon in the darkness? “Excuse me sir, please leave the theater”. Babies and/or toddlers causing a nusiance because their parents refuse to hire a babysitter when they want to see and R-rated or otherwise not-appropriate-for-youngsters movie? There’s the door, don’t let it hit you in the ass on the way out.
I know, I know, this would cost more for the theater chains, and they would have to hire above minimum wage, perhaps something along the lines of security guards, AND you would need someone for every theater–so that’s an additional 12 or so employees on rotation all day, every day. Expensive, yes, but I believe it’s becoming increasingly necessary. There exists now a generation used to watching movies in their living rooms, and they may not be aware that a movie theater is NOT their own personal space to treat as they will–it is a common space, that everyone has paid good money to share, and should be respected as such. And the only way they will respect it is if they are made to respect it. You can’t follow the rules? You don’t get to watch the way everyone else is, period.
The Island will do decent enough. All crappy Bay movies do well.
45 million. Thats dollars.
The Island got 3 stars in the Post today. A real rave review for it. Could it actually be decent?
Do you think Scarlett is doing a movie that isn’t good or well received? She is a star. I am kinda glad she passed on MI 3. With all the stories I heard about Cruise trying to recruit her for Scientology it shows me she has brains.
Also the fact that I’ve hungout with her twin brother is kinda cool too.
She doesn’t need the deal they cut for Katie Holmes. A few million bucks. A list. Free press. She already has a career that every young actress wants. She doesn’t need a fake Hollywood marriage to a gay star.
Not to be a pest, but Fahrenheit 9/11, White Chicks, The Notebook and Two Brothers all debuted on the fourth weekend of June last year, not July.
Incidentally, the fourth weekend totals for June and July of 2004 were nearly identical ($138.5 million was the June number), but it was $69.2 million of July’s fourth weekend that was led by just two wide releases – The Bourne Supremacy and Catwoman.
Kind of a glitch with the BoxOfficeMojo yearly comparisons is that it apparently counts the box office for any given movie all in the year of release. So, according to BoxOfficeMojo, Titanic’s entire $600 million is in 1997, at least when one uses the year-to-date filter.
Of course, the way BoxOfficeMojo apparently counts it, 1998 ended up grossing more than 1997 when the end of the year rolled around even if it was behind as of July 20th.
As for movie theater ads, I believe it was Arbitron that released a study that said that 66% of respondents didn’t mind the ads, with an even higher number for the younger 12 to 24 demographic not minding the ads (and though I’m not in the 12 to 24 demographic, I don’t mind the ads). If true, that would make it unlikely we’ll see them disappear anytime soon.
I remember at the start of the year everyone was so surprised that movies were making much more than they expected. started with White Noise and Boogeymen and such. Also The Pacifier and such.
I think The Island will reach around $43mil. Those “from the director of Armageddon and Bad Boys” things work don’t they?
BEK, cinemas (multiplexes) simply can’t afford to have one or two employees standing around for the entire movie. If they did that they’d have to jack prices up more.