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” â 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 â 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 â he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” â and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging â I was with her at that moment â 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 namedâ” “Yeah, sure â 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 Iâm on the phone with you now, after all thatâs 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 didnât seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereâs not a case of that. He wasnât using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had â if that were what the accusation involved â 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. Iâm not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, âYou know, itâs not this, itâs thatâ? Because â let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, thatâs what it lacked. Thatâs 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
Nacho Libre’s PG? Okay, it WILL be a hit now.
I can’t really disagree with what you said in all that. We will definitely see some more casualties, that’s a given. I think “The Lake House” is gonna be one just this weekend actually.
DP, I’m with you that this will be a good summer. Besides your noting that we’ve not had many flops so far and that we have some highly likely winners ahead, don’t forget to point out how poor last summer was. I beleive the 2005 box office went 18 straight weeks through most of August with a down comparison from 2004. And if you pull out the final Star Wars film, it was an incredibly week summer.
As for Cars, I’ll take the over on the $195 million and call this weekend at over $80 million. I’m counting on that NASCAR fan base.
Direwolf…whatever you do…. don’t say the word S-L-U-M-P…I beg you… đ
I just want to know what got “The Reaping” bumped from a $24 million prognostication to $24.5.
Also, don’t you think “A Prairie Home Companion” will do at least $2.5 million this week alone? It’s opening on 760 screens.
I just realized this week that The Lake House is a remake of a Korean film (Il Mare) I saw at a festival years ago. I still haven’t seen a single ad or trailer for Lake House short of having to seek it out online myself.
I’ve seen the “Lake House” trailer a couple times in theaters. It is also rated PG, and might be a “Notebook”-style hit with older people who rarely go to multiplexes.
I’ve seen the Lake House trailer several times over the past few weeks. I actually think it could do moderately well, in that $40-70 mil range (maybe the stars’ salaries cost too much to make $40 mil profitable though). Considering the non-romantic nature of The Break-Up, I think Lake House could make some Ya-Ya Sisterhood/Notebook type of money. (It won’t be the phenom of The Notebook, but apparently box-office expectations are equally low so it could surprise.)
Wasn’t The Reaping bumped to November?
I don’t know if this deserves its own thread so I’ll cram it into here. I just saw a trailer for “An Inconvenient Truth” and noticed that they take pains to highlight a rave from “Fox News’ Roger Friedman.” They don’t attribute anyone else to a media entity including Larry King or Peter Travers. Following the non-controversy that was Drudge’s “hiding Al Gore” scandal I thought this was especially humorous.
Yeah, theater reactions to The Lake House trailer have been very good in both theaters I’ve seen it play. Always a chick or two whispering “I wanna see that!” The Notebook is a good comparison, Massey.
Now if they only could have gotten Dennis Hopper and Jeff Daniels as the wacky gay couple living next door, we’d be in real business here.
So I know no one here will care, but Jeff Wells’ non-review review of Superman has started to get me excited about seeing it.
Does anyone know if they’ll be showing the 3-D bits at digitial theaters as well as IMAX, or only at IMAX?
I’ve also seen The Lake House preview several times…and I felt nauseated. I don’t think it’ll get past $50M. Maybe I’m reading the crowd wrong, we’ve all done it before. But I get a huge been there done that vibe. Had it opened in Februrary…different story.
Me – the official site certainly makes it sound like the only 3D theaters are the IMAX ones listed here
http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/comingSoonMovieTheater.do?movieID=code__.__27&displayComingSoonMovieTheater=true
…and, you’re right. The Wells non-review really piqued my interest too. Don’t want to put much stock in it, but since this year’s tentpoles have pretty much sucks thus far, I need something to look forward to.
is $50 mill for a movie called “Lake House” a bad thing?
I see that Cars started playing at 11 AM in theatres around me in Chicago. Lots of kids out of school by now so that might make Friday a bit more important than for other family films that have opened the last few months. The latest batch of reviews are more mixed than the early favorable ones. Disney stock has fallen significantly more than the market the last few days. I’d attribute that to falling expectations for the film.
The 3D Superman gimmick is only on IMAX screens. Basically, these days there are two prominent 3D processes: IMAX 70mm and digital. IMAX’s proprietary process has only been used on two reformated 35mm films so far: Polar Express and Superman. Later this summer IMAX will be doing a 3D version of Ant Bully (Warners *loves* IMAX for some godforsaken reasion).
IMAX is very protective of its format and brand and would be pretty pissed off if a studio decided to do both a digital 3D version in addition to their 70mm 3D version. IMAX has been a leader is 3D technology for the past few decades and they’ve tried to position themselves, with their DMR process, as being the primary distributor of 3D reformated studio films. Unfortunately for them, a lot of studios and filmmakers are now bypassing IMAX and their technology in favor of digital 3D. What technology is Zemeckis using for Monster House? Digital. Surely a slap in the face to the company that bent over backwards with their great work on Polar Express.
Once Warner’s loses their stiffy for IMAX, I doubt you’ll see any more 70mm 3D product in the future.
Alright, looks like I’ll be travelling into DC to see Superman, then.
Wrecktum, what’s your problem with IMAX?! I’ve had much better experiences with, and am much more interested in, the IMAX screenings than the “up and coming” digital projection, which still, to me, looks decent but far from superior to film. I like IMAX because it’s virtually guaranteed to be big, clear, and framed right. I know digital projection has more potential widespread use, but I’m not particularly enticed by theaters finding a cheaper way to maintain the status quo. So eventually the two or three crappiest screens in the multiplex will also be digitally projected. Yee-haw.
IMAX is too big. It’s too immersive. I love widescreen formats (Cinerama, Todd-AO, etc.) but dislike the huge vertical nature of IMAX screens. The War. brothers, when reformatting Matrix Reloaded for IMAX, insisted that their film retain its 2.35:1 aspect ratio so that the wouldn’t lose picture left or right. This made the film look like nothing more than a regular 70mm release, which is fine by me but certainly not what the IMAX format is all about.
Jesse, you say that you “like IMAX because it’s virtually guaranteed to be big, clear, and framed right.” Well, that may or may not be true but what you’re really saying is that regular 35mm theatres don’t employ projectionists or booth managers who care about the quality of their product. This is, sadly, many times true. But that doesn’t make IMAX inherently better…it just means that most people don’t care enough to complain when the 35mm film they’re watching isn’t masked properly, or is scratched or the projector lamp is dim.
I love big and immersive — for some movies, at least. I didn’t say that it’s inherently better than anything, just that I’ve been a lot more impressed with IMAX features as an innovation than the supposedly revolutionary digital projection (which still looks bright but slightly pixelated and less shaded to my eyes).
I’m not sure what your point is in noting that IMAX screens are so vertical, and singling out the Matrix movies as maintaining their aspect ratio. From my experiences (V for Vendetta, Matrix movies, Harry Potter, Batman Begins, etc.), *no* recent features shown in IMAX actually take up the whole screen — precisely because they maintain their original ratio. Some (most?) may not have been 2.35:1, so they may have used more of the vertical space than the Matrix films, but it’s not as if the non-Matrix films are being cropped or “verticalized” for those screens. Are there any cases of movies being altered by IMAX screens that I don’t know about?
I *have* wondered why they don’t try to make their screens wider rather than taller, since it seems the bigger money is in theatrical releases not made specifically for IMAX, and I grant your point that it’s essentially no different than a 70mm release (this was especially clear when I saw Poseidon on a newer, more mutipliex-integrated IMAX screen that, consequently, wasn’t really much bigger than the typical biggest room in a new-ish multiplex)… but how many 70mm releases do we see of new movies outside of the IMAX screens? If the worst you can say about IMAX is that it provides outlet for 70mm releases, then bring it on.
I appreciate what IMAX does for some movies — makes it into more of a larger-than-life event — which helps people get more into the theatrical rexperience. Whereas digital projection is pushed as this big incentive to help maintain the theater experience, but really seems to me like a way for theaters to save money, without any real guarantee that moviegoers will see any improvements (like improved service or — and I know this would never happen — lower prices), while simultaneously embracing the “movies as slightly bigger TV” idea that I hate so.
I do agree that many theaters don’t care enough to make the experience better and most customers don’t care enough to complain. But, I dunno, if IMAX, for whatever reasons, *does* tend to be operated by people who are a little more on the ball in terms of the tech stuff (I guess I’m making an assumption here, but that’s certainly been my experience), then that *is* a big plus for me.
I like the digital projector look…granted the colors are bright, etc. But the picture is often clear and smooth. While film is great, I’d certainly rather see a CG animated film in digital than I would as a transfer to film. It is a more authentic experience of how the movie is.
The problem isn’t that customers re lazy when it comes to complaining about poorly-projected movies, but the 19-year-old kid who doesn’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The couple of times I’ve dare to complain about poor framing or a dim bulb, the kid usually tells me “it’s the movie.”
“I’m not sure what your point is in noting that IMAX screens are so vertical, and singling out the Matrix movies as maintaining their aspect ratio. From my experiences (V for Vendetta, Matrix movies, Harry Potter, Batman Begins, etc.), *no* recent features shown in IMAX actually take up the whole screen — precisely because they maintain their original ratio. Some (most?) may not have been 2.35:1, so they may have used more of the vertical space than the Matrix films, but it’s not as if the non-Matrix films are being cropped or “verticalized” for those screens. Are there any cases of movies being altered by IMAX screens that I don’t know about?”
What I meant to say is that Matrix Roloaded (controversially at the time) was projected with letterboxing at the top and bottom of the frame and, subsequently, all other DMR films have followed suit. Before Reloaded all DMR films (Apollo 13 and Attack of the Clones come to mind) were full frame, utilizing the entire IMAX screen. This new widescreen policy for DMR films makes me laugh, because, in essence, what’s being created is pretty much exactly what the old great 70mm houses had forty years ago. The only difference is that the film, instead of being shot in the 70mm format, has been digitally sharpened by IMAX, so what you’re really getting is a digital version of the original 35mm film. How is watching a digital clean up of a 35mm film that better than seeing the original 35mm version?
“I *have* wondered why they don’t try to make their screens wider rather than taller, since it seems the bigger money is in theatrical releases not made specifically for IMAX, and I grant your point that it’s essentially no different than a 70mm release (this was especially clear when I saw Poseidon on a newer, more mutipliex-integrated IMAX screen that, consequently, wasn’t really much bigger than the typical biggest room in a new-ish multiplex)… but how many 70mm releases do we see of new movies outside of the IMAX screens? If the worst you can say about IMAX is that it provides outlet for 70mm releases, then bring it on.”
We see absolutely no 70mm versions outside of IMAX. The last movie shot in 70mm was Far and Away. My fantasy is that filmmakers start shooting in 70mm again and resurrecting some of those old 70mm houses (with proper screen masking, unlike IMAX).
“I appreciate what IMAX does for some movies — makes it into more of a larger-than-life event — which helps people get more into the theatrical rexperience. Whereas digital projection is pushed as this big incentive to help maintain the theater experience, but really seems to me like a way for theaters to save money, without any real guarantee that moviegoers will see any improvements (like improved service or — and I know this would never happen — lower prices), while simultaneously embracing the “movies as slightly bigger TV” idea that I hate so.”
Theatres really don’t save a dime with digital. They’ve already invested their money in film projectors…if anything, replacing projectors with digital equipment *costs* money. That’s why exhibition wouldn’t mind keeping the status quo and why distributors (who’ll really, really benefit from digital distribution) have to pretty much pony up the cost of digital projection themselves. When you talk about perceived “improvement” of the quality of digital projection vs. 35mm, it really depends on the film. A movie like Click certainly won’t look any better on digital, but a film like Cars will. Cars was created digitally and suffers from the transition to film. A 2K digital screening of Cars is demonstratably better than a similar screening in 35mm.
“I do agree that many theaters don’t care enough to make the experience better and most customers don’t care enough to complain. But, I dunno, if IMAX, for whatever reasons, *does* tend to be operated by people who are a little more on the ball in terms of the tech stuff (I guess I’m making an assumption here, but that’s certainly been my experience), then that *is* a big plus for me.”
Two reasons for this: 1) IMAX Corp. owns and/or operates a lot of IMAX theatres themselves, and, obviously, it’s in their interest to make sure the film looks great. 2) Even in those theatres not run by IMAX the projection staff is better than your average 35mm popcorn-jockey. Why? Because IMAX equipment is so damned difficult to operate that a theatre is pretty much forced to hire people who know what they’re doing.
“The problem isn’t that customers re lazy when it comes to complaining about poorly-projected movies, but the 19-year-old kid who doesn’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The couple of times I’ve dare to complain about poor framing or a dim bulb, the kid usually tells me ‘it’s the movie.’ ”
Yes. And that’s the kind of stuff that drives people away from theatres. Even more than cell phones, crying babies and rude teenagers, if the film up on screen looks like crap, there’s no incentive for audiences to come back. Circuits keep cutting there engineering and technical staffs to save money…and the theatrical experience gets worse and worse.
Digital projection will save theaters money…in the bigger picture. Digital is less bulky and easier to rewind and play. If you’ve got a movie that is selling out, you can more easily move it to the bigger room and put a lesser selling one in the smaller room and sell more tickets. You can schedule more screenings since you don’t need the extra time to rewind and setup. You won’t need to spend money on maintaining all the movable parts of a film projector (although digital no doubt will require some maintenance). The staff will spend less time with big heavy reels that require attention to store, etc.
^^^All of the above are only going to save money over the _very_ long term. It currently isn’t that hard to move a print from one projector to another, and it probably takes longer to clean a theater between shows (if they bother to).
When digital reaches a saturation level (it will) you might be able to cut a few theatre staffers, but, honestly, the only time that will be saved will be building up and breaking down film (still a long, cumbersome process). The rest of it (rewinding, moving platters between houses, projector set up) is all so easy and automated these days that you’re not going to have any labor savings.
“Alright, looks like I’ll be travelling into DC to see Superman, then.”
Is it playing in IMAX in DC? I don’t see it on the list.
Awww, Blackcloud, you’re right. I just assumed that since we have at least three IMAX theaters in the area, one of them would have it.
It looks like I’d have to drive 200 miles away to see it. I’m psyched about 3-D, and could convince my girlfriend to go into town to see it, but no way she’s agreeing to 200 miles for a comicbook movie. Looks like it’s the local theater or even waiting for DVD for me.
A few things –
Breaking embargo, which Wells did, would have gotten him in a lot of trouble had he gone negative.
Wells fails to mention that the IMAX preview, which will only be on IMAX screens, still has no sound and has other unfinsihed issues. There was some degree of shock amongst the media on hand about how unfinished the footage was this close to day-n-date release.
And of course, keep in mind that Wells hated Pirates 1, not even sitting through the whole film, and that was the highest grossing film of that year.
Word I am getting on Superman, which I did not see because I am in Seattle, is pretty mixed. “Too long” and “too short on geek content” are the two big complaints, followed by the comical miscasting of Kate Bosworth as a Pulitzer winner with a 6 year old child. The argument is that there is a lot of standing around posing and recalling Brando and the section, as a for instance, of him in space cruising Krypton was cut. This is not to say that the movie was reviled. I have heard none of that. No haters. But Jeffrey is, from what I gather, the biggest romancer the film has. Perhaps he pictures himself in tights and better hair.
In any case, I will go into the movie next week with open expectations and see how it goes. I hope it’s great. Regardless, there is little chance that it will beat Pirates 2 this summer, which has a much wider base of established fans and a much wider attaction to under 10s and over 40s.
Yeah, Me, you’d think with the three Smithsonian screens it’d play somewhere. But the only theatrical IMAX releases I recall playing there are Attack of the Clones and Goblet of Fire, which just finished after a four-month run. Maybe Apollo 13 played, but that’s it. Really disappointing. I’m not sure who’s to blame, but I’ll blame the Smithsonian until and unless I know better. There’s a screen at the Regal Gallery Place 14 that’s IMAX-capable, but they have no desire to go that way. Blast!
On the bright side, at least the G’town has gone digital. And for Superman, there’s always the Uptown.
Blackcloud, yeah it’s just pissing me off that combined Washington and Baltimore are one of the largest markets in the country, and it’s not playing anywhere nearby. Meanwhile I have a digital theter right down the street on Lee Highway where I saw Chicken Little 3-D. This whole competeing format is almost as bad as the Blu-ray/HD-DVD thing.
And yeah, Well’s opinions should always be taken with a rather large grain of salt, but it certainly makes me hopeful than I had been about the flick. That said, after X-3 I could do with a comicbook movie with a little less geek content and more actual storytelling.
Also, don’t you think “A Prairie Home Companion” will do at least $2.5 million this week alone? It’s opening on 760 screens.
“Prairie Home” is playing arthouse/upmarket so that estimate may be low. It’s not playing anywhere in the Regal chain, however; the industry press and wire services have yet to pick up on that.
I saw ROTS in digital at the Lee Highway theater. I was quite disappointed. It was much better at the Annapolis Mall digital screen. I saw Chicken Little 3-D at Georgetown. I hope to see Cars in digital there. I’ve managed to miss M:I 3 and Over the Hedge. Bummer.
Don’t know if anyone’s still talking about IAMX, but the reason you won’t see it at the Smithsonian or at the Baltimore MD Science Center is because they’re both public educational facilities whose mandate really doesn’t include making money for Warner Bros’ PG-13 and R rated films.
“since it seems the bigger money is in theatrical releases not made specifically for IMAX”
Apart from The Polar Express how do you figure that? Is there any numbers to indicate how much a movie made in IMAX theatres compared to regular theatres. Because while non-IMAX movies shown at IMAX may make money for a certain given time, true IMAX films can screen for years and make tonnes of cash. One check of Box Office Mojo’s weekly box office charts will show you that.
“Don’t know if anyone’s still talking about IAMX, but the reason you won’t see it at the Smithsonian or at the Baltimore MD Science Center is because they’re both public educational facilities whose mandate really doesn’t include making money for Warner Bros’ PG-13 and R rated films.”
That’s the most likely reason, but given that they showed Warner’s PG-13 Goblet of Fire, that justification would be a lot harder to use from now on.
Yeah, in DC, if I want the best movie experience, I make the trek to the Uptown. The atmosphere alone makes it worth while.
But for something in 3-D (the only reason I really care about digital), it is real nice having one right around the corner.
I tend to agree with what James Cameron has said about digital and reengaging audiences to go to the theaters – offer them something they can’t get at home. 3-D.
“Apart from The Polar Express how do you figure that? Is there any numbers to indicate how much a movie made in IMAX theatres compared to regular theatres. Because while non-IMAX movies shown at IMAX may make money for a certain given time, true IMAX films can screen for years and make tonnes of cash. One check of Box Office Mojo’s weekly box office charts will show you that.”
Though I admit it’s hard to gauge since there aren’t individual IMAX numbers tracking through most box office data (so all I ever hear tends to be either first-weekend or final numbers), I don’t think it’s safe to assume that being able to play Everest or T-Rex or whatever that thing was called all year would be financially beneficial. Certainly of those will make more over five or six years than, say, the IMAX grosses for V FOR VENDETTA, but a *series* of successful theatrical shows in IMAX can provide a lot of money with little downside (that is, even with something less successful like POSEIDON, it’s not as if they’re losing a lot of money by showing that on Friday night rather than EVEREST or HOW ROLLERCOASTERS WORK or whatever).
So if you have a steady stream of product where every few months you have a few big weekends caused by BATMAN BEGINS, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, and HARRY POTTER, I wouldn’t think it would bother the execs too much that you can’t play those movies for months at a time. The made-for-IMAX features are certainly valuable in the long run to fill the gaps, but they aren’t going to sell out an entire weekend ahead of time as GOBLET OF FIRE IMAX did in NYC last fall.
True i suppose. Although I’d be there on opening weekend for How Rollercoasters Work, WOULDN’T YOU!
đ
Someone needs to make that…and Helen Hunt could narrate it.
Am I going crazy, or is Vin Diesel now appearing in TV commercials for Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift? I’m guessing that using him in the ads would require him to get paid more for his appearance than if it was just a cameo in the movie with no advertising tie-in, right?