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
Given how universally everyone stayed away from the well-reviewed, non-controversial United 93, I doubt lightning rod Oliver Stone will be able to deliver much of an audience no matter how Paramount markets this film. That said, I thought the trailer was good
I don’t like the look of this movie. It looks sappy and pandering. I have a hard time buying Cage’s Brooklyn accent and the Zoolander billboard is in enormously bad taste.
Box-office wise, t’ll probably do just fine.
I didn’t like the trailer. I was distracted by Nic Cage’s (and the dude from Crash)’s presence. 9/11 happened to all of us, and their presence in the film all but guaranteed the Hollywoodizing of a national tragedy. I felt cheapened when I saw the elaborate building collapse’s demise, knowing it was a special effect, knowing that there is no way that it could look real. And even tho the film is based on a true story, it almost made it appear that their escape was as fortuitous as the androids in Michael Bay’s _The Island_.
If people thought United 93 was pandering, then the reaction against this will be ten times worse. It’s a 9/11 film with big name actors and glossy production values but, in the end, it is something that nowadays plays best only on TV. A ripped-from-the-headlines movie of the week.
If Oliver Stone uses Vangelis again the film will tank.
I’d rather have Vangelis than the weepy crud music they’re using in the trailer.
There is a big difference between excruciating (U93) and gripping (WTC). The latter film, for non-new yorkers anyway, doesn’t look as threatening to my fragile little heart.
(Funny enough the movie I associate the week of 9/11/01 with is Zoolander!)
Aye-ka-cheesey-rumba
I was in Lower Manhattan on that Tuesday morning and I will never forget seeing the people who jumped 110 stories to their deaths in order to escape the flames. I am also not someone who thinks that good art can’t or shouldn’t emerge from 9/11, but what the hell was that? It played like the tacky souvenir sellers in Vatican City — lots of people devouring holographic Jesus gimcrack that’s really the exact opposite of reverence.
This is the 911 film that I think most people want to see. It is focused on our characters, their families, and the circumstances. It wears its emotions on its sleeve. It is not an avant garde, context-stripped, you-are-there, chaotic jumble. It is not about terrorism but heroism. And featuring an Oscar winning actor and an Oscar winning director doesn’t hurt either.
Just because a movie may be popular, doesn’t mean it will be good.
I thought it was a good trailer. Not the best, but certainly not terrible. It got the point across.
The trailer looked interesting to me. I think I could handle this one. My fear of planes kept me from United 93. I suppose its impossible to measure torture – but I cant even think about those people on the planes.
I don’t know how you measure it going to 140. I don’t even know how you thought it would make 75.
Who really wants to see this? Who wants to see all those horrific images again? It takes a strong stomach for the viewer and a well done film. Even with both, look what happenned to United 93. And that was far cheaper and knew what it was.
Plus, once word leaks out about what this movie really is, with the majority of it taking place beneath the rubble… forget about it. Once again, who do you imagine wants to see this? And furthermore, who wants to pay money, during the summer, for this?
I’ll be shocked if this does even 60 million domestic. And internationally, it’s gotta be a wash.
It’s a good trailer and looks like a well-made film. Whether it resonates with the public is up for debate but it does seem more accessible than United 93. Some might disagree, but I think having a movie star like Cage is a good choice for the film. Clearly, this is classical “Hollywood” style moviemaking, but I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. It feels like a very tasteful approach to the tragedy.
The Zoolander billboard that appears in the same frame as the shadow of the plane is not in good taste.
I don’t see the problem with the Zoolander billboard. Was the movie playing on 9/11? So what’s the issue?
This looks better than I expeced, with Stone as director. I’d rather have “Hollywood” than typical Oliver Stone.
The trailer serves its purpose. It tells you that the movie will be respectful to the events. It also tells you that it’s not going to be United 93. This is a good thing. I’m a huge fan of United 93, and I don’t want a repeat. I look forward to Stone’s approach. He has always been a great showman before anything else. People seem to ignore that.JFK, NBK, and NIxon are marvels of filmmaking. NBK has influenced every part of pop culture over the last decade. Stone was able to see where we were and where were going. You can see columbine, Paris Hilton, and our war with Islam in NBK.
From the first frames of the trailer Cage looks at ease. His Brooklyn accent is fine. You can hear it but it doesn’t call attention to itslef.
I don’t see the problem with the Zoolander billboard. THey were advertising the shit out of that movie during that week. The other movie I rememeber from that time was that awful Don’t Say A Word.
Is Williams doing the score? That canned score has got to go.
The Shot of the plane’s shadow maybe the movie’s money shot. It’s very chilling.
There’s nothing wrong with stars in big-budget, big-studio movies about traumatic events. It’s a good thing you people didn’t live during the time Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper were in every heroic biopic being made back in the day.
I still think there’s a ceiling on how much World Trade Center can make, especially since it will hit the doldrums of August… I think $75 million, your original number, which is also in Jarhead range, was right on the money.
Heavy handed crap.
The problem with the Zoolander billboard is that it’s conscious, deliberate product placement in a movie about one of the most devastating days in American history. Excusing it by saying “there would have been ads up anyway” ignores the fact that it was consciously placed there. There would have been billboards up for Fox’s Don’t Say a Word or Warner’s Rock Star on that day, but you don’t see them there, do you?
jeff, you are really out to lunch on this one. That billboard, was really there. Yes, it’s a Paramount movie but for authenticity sake–the billboard was there. If you want to get angry about something, then spend that energy on something else. This right here…a non-issue.
I also find it incredibly funny, that you find a guy from the NYC. As a poor choice to play a Brooklyn firefighter. He’s from there. His accent comes and goes in most of his movies. Again, this is an issue to you, why?
TESTING…
I will see it for Maggie Gyllenhall and the great Michael Pena. Other than that, the trailer left me cold
TheManWho, do you have direct knowledge that there was a Zoolander billboard in that particular spot in New York City on that day, and that Oliver Stone and co. merely recreated it along with the jet shadow for the film?
If you do, please give me a link or something. But I suspect that this is not the case, and it was a manufactured thing. I BEG you to find proof for ‘authenticity’s sake’.
Meanwhile, Nicolas Cage is listed on IMDB as being born in Long Beach. I don’t think he’s from NYC at all, which is probably why his Brooklyn accent sounds so fake.
PS: Even if there really did just happen to be a Zoolander billboard in that particular spot in Manhattan, then they should have replaced it with something innocuous, or no billboard at all. My point is that there’s something very wrong with a movie about a national tragedy being used to cross-promote other product, no matter how small in the frame or for how many seconds. There was effort involved to put that image there, and that’s what matters.
Jeff, in countless specials featuring footage from 9/11. That billboard is clearly noticeable. I even remember a picture of that billboard or another Zoolander billboard–covered with soot and having papers strewn in front of it. It was really there. Getting all huffy due to the studio making this film also having a tie to Zoolander. Ignores how something common place like a movie advertisement on that day–took on a different meaning from the one in which it was intended. Again…it’s getting huffy for nothing. With Cage, well, not like the brother does not have ties to both coast. He’s also one of the few actorss that can disapper in a role in the right film.
Specials are non-fiction. This is a fictional construct where a Paramount product is being marketed. If, in the film itself, they show the same Zoolander billboard covered in soot and debris, that would satisfy me, because it would be a sign of honesty. But until that happens, it’s crass cross-promotion.
Other films opened on 9/11 but the fact that the Zoolander poster is present is good I think, it symbolizes America’s innocence and the kind of dreck it was preoccupied with when the tragedy occured.
The issue is not Zoolander or 9/11 the issue is will audiences sit for 2 hours watchign two guys stuck under rubble reminiscing about their past or intercut with wives reactions a la APOLLO 13?
You really think people are going to watch this movie and come out thinking, “You know, I really should go rent Zoolander”???
I agree with Spacesheik… what better way to dramatize the instantaneous loss of innocence on 9/11 than by showing the shadow of the plane crossing over something as innocuous as a Zoolander billboard.
As someone living in NYC during that period, those Zoolander posters were everywhere, and I think it’s for the sake of accuracy that it’s included in the movie/trailer more than as some sort of promotion.
Stone appears to really hate Zoolander. I’m sorry if this was mentioned already, but after 9/11 there was some event in New York that Stone participated in. Jeff Wells has talked about it but off the top of my head I can’t remember exactly what it was for. I think Christopher Hitchens and some other filmmakers were part of it. Anyway, Stone made some derisive comments about Zoolander. Guess that movie really rubs him the wrong way.
Yeah but Oliver Stone is really really yoogoogally.
Zoolander rubs me the wrong way, too. The only scene I remember laghing at was the runway showdown bwtween Stiller and Wilson.
I vote that we ignore Jeff and get back to a more serious discussion of Stone and WTC.
For some reason, this trailer did not bother me as much as the one for United 93 (which I did not see). I’m not saying this makes rational sense, but United 93 (as presented in the trailer) felt more exploitative to me because it used actual 9/11 footage in a way as to make the whole thing seem like a Tom Clancy thriller. Paradoxically, the fact that it was trying to be “real” and non-exploitative made it seem more so.
The WTC trailer doesn’t bother me as much, again, paradoxically, because the whole thing feels more schmaltzy and theatrical. The obvious “movie” quality distances me enough so that I can handle and process the intense emotions the subject matter elicits. I don’t know if anyone else has ever felt this, that they can’t cry at the funeral of a loved one but will blubber like a baby at some sappy movie. Being too close to really strong emotions can overwhelm your ability to respond, and you shut down.
It seems wrong even to me, but I would see WTC while I wouldn’t see United 93 or a documentary that showed the actual 9/11 footage. Not because I think WTC will be artistically superior or more authentic, but because its artistic flaws and layer of cinematic hokum will make the experience of this traumatic subject more manageable.
I can’t believe I just defended manipulative schlock as a valid artistic approach.
I don’t see what’s necessarily wrong with making a movie that deals with 911 while softening the blow. And I do think watching two people under rubble will be watchable, because it is about human emotion and heroism. It is the story of what two people do when they are cut off and believe they are trapped in their grave (but unlike U93 we get to know the men and their families). Even if U93 was a good movie, is it imperative that all movies just deal with the event in some uber-ascetic way? Wounds aren’t healed by tearing them open again and poking them. All I’m saying is that there is room for both interpretations if not more.
Also, it’s a rights issue as well – it’s much easier for Paramount to show “Zoolander” than, say, “Don’t Say A Word.” \
If Paramount were releasing “Zoolander II” in November, then I might see an issue with this.
JeffMCM-
The Zoolander billboard in the trailer reeks of “Cross Promotion”?
For a film that is five years old and pretty much everyone has seen?
That has to be one of the most asanine comments I’ve seen on this blog in a while.
No offense.
Crow, you’re using it all wrong. Did you think we’d be too stupid to know what a eugoogoly was?
I’m hoping the movie is at least 50% trapped under rubble. That would have kept the budget down, too. I’m thinking it’ll be very cheesy, though. Stone looks like he’s lost his edge and is trying desperately to maintain his career after his recent string of flops.
THX, I’m not saying it’s major promotion for something Paramount wants people to rush out and buy on DVD. I’m saying it’s a sneaky, insidious, synergistic way to keep the name of the movie alive in peoples’ heads, subconsciously. It’s part of the creeping process of turning everything into a form of marketing or advertising. It’s why half of the toys in The 40 Year Old Virgin were based on classic Universal movies. It’s why every TV in The Day After Tomorrow was tuned to Fox News. I’m not outraged by it, but I do think people need to be aware.
Here’s a question: if Stone’s movie was being released by Fox, does anyone think they would have spent the money to digitally recreate a Zoolander billboard, or maybe see if they could change it to a Don’t Say a Word billboard and see if anyone noticed?
Jeff, it’s a lot easier to get clearance on a poster that your studio already owns.
It’s even easier to not put a poster up at all.
Not if you want to be historically accurate and make a point at the same time.
It’s not really fair to ascribe craven motives on this issue to Stone or the studio based on that shot.
You’re right, it’s too early to make that judgment. Knowing Stone, the movie will probably turn out to be more complex and richer than the trailer looks. All I’m saying is, it rubs me the wrong way and we don’t know if there actually is a point being made at all, yet.
Just for counter-argument sake, if this Paramount movie decided to put the Fox movie billboard for Don’t Say a Word in its NY scene, would that then be acceptable taste-wise because it was a different studio? And if that Zoolander billboard being in that exact spot in NY at that exact moment was historically correct, would that still be cross-promotion (after all, they could have chosen to film a non-billboard scene)?
Pretty much every image in every studio movie is the subject of intense scrutiny. What is different here?
Jeffmcm –
I agree with you in principle. But it still feels like you’re reaching here, homie.
I do like the idea that if the Zoolander billboard is not factually accurate (I don’t know, I don’t have evidence to back that up) that it connotates the end of that 90’s Clinton “innocence” era the above poster was talking about. But that is only an interpretation, and not necessarily the intent of the filmmakers.
I think Oliver Stone is a strong enough filmmaker that he could have come up with a better symbol of ‘innocence lost’ than a Ben Stiller movie about a supermodel trying to kill the President of Malaysia.
To be fair, I thought the billboard was distracting, too. I didn’t think it was a crass marketing thing, though. I thought that because the vivid green on the “Zoolander” billboard was really a jarring distraction from the otherwise muted color palette. It clashed.
The trailer is making me expect a very pandering movie. Maybe Ron Howard should have directed “WTC” and Oliver Stone should have directed “Da Vinci Code.”
I tribute to the resilience of New York, I bought a terrible pirated copy of Zoolander on Canal Street in NY in the last week of that September. I just hope Oliver Stone doesn’t have that in the movie!
Eric, your fantasy version would make a lot more sense. Just as one movie is Apollo 13 under rubble, Oliver Stone’s Da Vinci Code would have been JFK’s European Vacation.
“I think Oliver Stone is a strong enough filmmaker that he could have come up with a better symbol of ‘innocence lost’ than a Ben Stiller movie about a supermodel trying to kill the President of Malaysia.”
Very true.
Which is why my gut tells me that this is a historically accurate representation, and if the case, then Stone makes the point of “innocence lost” while staying accurate.
Jeff, you still haven’t answered the question that someone else posed to you –
If it turns out that that Zoolander billboard was historically there in that place, in the shot of the trailer – then would it bother you?
Is it still subliminal cross promotion, if it’s factually true that billboard was truly standing there that day?
^^^Yes it is, because there was a conscious decision to frame the shot in such a way to include the billboard in the frame.
Part of my problem is a general distaste for the trailer. If it had been shot in the same style as United 93, more handheld and verite, there would have been no question that this image was there for purposes of verisimilitude. But here, it’s questionable.
^^^Although certainly, the presence of a real billboard in that spot mitigates the problem. If we see it covered in dust later on in the movie, even better. (By which I mean ‘better’).
$140 m sounds really high, but when you factor in a certain amount of demand the 5th anniversary will generate, doesn’t seem to be that far off.
To clarify my statements from earlier–I was a bit confused. The Zoolander billboard I refered to–was right around the WTC site. Not the one in the trailer, that’s a billboard with the shadow of the plane going over it. I apologize for the mistake. However, that billboard, was probably there. That’s prime real-estate for signage in the NYC. So, it was there, and while it’s a bit glaring. It does serve it’s purpose.
With the clearance issues you were going on about jeff. Yes–people should look into these things, but clearances are easier to get. If you, in fact, have some interest or product placement agreement with your film. However, Contact, used CNN perfectly for the film. If you have the rights–you might as well use them. Even if they make your video store look odd, the rooms of people look rather odd, and so on. One thing though; most of the toys in the 40 Year-Old Virgin are Toybiz related, and the other figures that are UNIVERSAL MONSTERS. Actually are SIDESHOW COLLECTABLES and a huge commercial for them in that movie.
its kind of an interesting way to show a culture shift, but i think it calls too much attention to itself and i’m not sure its appropriate in the trailer. That image is more distracting than effective in the trailer. In the movie, I can see it working quite well. Personally I kind of associate Zoolander with that week or two as well, more than Dont Say a Word, etc. It stood out as the sort of moronic place our culture was in at the time (not that things have really changed much). So I’d disagree with Jeff that its some sort of sneaky Paramount maneuver, it feels like an Oliver Stone creative decision. But it seems out of place in the trailer. Does it make it feel more “real” to have that poster in there?
In some Manhattan theaters the “World Trade Center” trailer is running in front of “The Da Vinci Code”.
According to today’s New York Daily News, people who saw “Da Vinci” on its release day yesterday got angry when the “WTC” trailer came on. AMC Theatres has posted a warning for the “WTC” trailer at the request of Paramount.
“And internationally, it’s gotta be a wash.” FNT, you think 911 only happened to America? What a git.
I doubt one billboard for “Zoolander” (which was released 5 years ago) in one shot will be considered cross-promotion. They’re not offering $5 coupons off copies of “Zoolander” to anyone who sees it! “Zoolander” was shite though. The only funny bit was Will Ferrell’s characters hypnosis video. It’s just a fact of life that movies from studios will use stuff like that (as you mentioned with 40-Year-Old Virgin and Day After Tomorrow). You’re deluding yourself if you think Fox are going to have all the news stations in Day After Tomorrow be on NBC or something.
Use some common sense, man!
If terrorists have flown the planes into a building with a sign on it and they filmed the shots so that you saw the buildings name every now and again would that be promoting the business? No, it’s just there.
I have yet to hear from one of my friends anything positive about this Oliver Stone movie.