Does Anyone Know Anything?
It’s an NKA world. Or is it?
If anyone thinks they know anything, it’s the people reading this blog.
This week’s 20 Weeks of Summer
The Box Office Chart
May 3, 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
What’s with the “DiXar” reference?
I am guessing you get it, Mel…. no?
There is no further meaning than Disney + Pixar… unless you want there to be.
Actually, no, I didn’t get it. Doh! Makes sense now, thanks.
As a fashion ignorant straight male, I’d like to think The Devil Wears Prada has a shot at $100 million because it’s easily the most entertaining film of the summer thus far (won’t be seeing POTC:DMC until next week). But that release date and Fox’s marketing effort won’t get it past $40 million.
Just got back from Dixarus, they’ve got a great line of toys. My wife loves the talking Paul Newman one.
I’m just not seeing $100+ for “Dupree.” And, unfortunately, I don’t think $70 million for “Little Man” will surprise anyone. “White Chicks” – which looked equally abhorrent – did $69.
Is “Miami Vice” here yet?
CARS might chug along to more than $220M and I find it interesting that its numbers have been increased over the original figure of $215M. I think it will do better than that.
My instincts tell me that this weekend’s drop will be in the 25% range with the same during the week giving it another $37M for a total gross to date of $170M.
Then, I think it should see repeat of the similiar bump OVER THE HEDGE saw for Memorial Day weekend for July 4th with CARS. Which means CARS takes in another $30-40M for the week, bringing it to over $200M.
Should that happen, which will goose the word-of-mouth awarness then perhaps it will see business that otherwise would have gone to POTC as parents discover that it is far less kid-friendly than they supposed. It then has until MONSTER HOUSE before direct competition opens. I think it will get closer to $230M than $220M.
If Break-Up can hit 100M, I don’t see any reason why Dupree can’t, especially since it looks to be much broader and more commercial.
Little Man will succeed, and folks will be taken aback, but it’s simply serving the underserved “urban” market, and “Waist Deep” may make some decent money this weekend for the same reason.
The question on Prada is if they can get ANY men into the theatre. I’ll see it because Streep doing comedy looks excellent, and because Anne Hathaway is hot, but I have a feeling I’m in the minority.
I’ll be seeing it for pretty much those reasons, too, MattM.
Fox should lean upmarket/arthouse with “Prada” based on subject matter and the trailer.
I don’t see a holiday bump for “Cars”. Fourth of July is a slow moviegoing day unless there’s rain or a heatwave. Also, the Fourth is on a Tuesday this year, so that won’t affect the weekend’s take.
They’re underselling the heck out of “Dupree.” No regular people I know have even heard of it. Hell, even I forgot it was coming out. And the trailer is underwhelming, to say the least.
Strange about Dupree because it seems like it could have easily done Break-Up numbers. But who knows.
I still don’t get the Monster House love. That movie looks weird. I don’t mean that in a good way, I mean those kids looks freaky and odd-looking. Me and some friends saw the trailer at Stick It the other night and we all thought the same. But, we’re not the target I suppose. Conversely, the Ant Bully teaser with the ant auditions was sort of funny.
Is it odd that Meryl Streep has three movies out this Summer? I can’t wait for Prairie and Prada to come out here.
Oh, and if anyone’s interested, I came across these exclusive Pirates of the Caribbean 2 pictures. This one looks scarier than the first by a long shot. 😛
http://thegildedmoose.blogspot.com/2006/06/exclusive-pics-first-pirates-of.html
(sorry, i found it funny)
Oh, and to be honest, Miramax wanted to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 but were disallowed. Right?
Well, sure Weinsteins wanted to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 through Miramax but were disallowed, but since Disney owned Miramax and had the ability to say no, Miramax itself didn’t want to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11.
But that’s splitting hairs.
I am genuinely saddened to hear of Aaron Spelling’s death. I know he produced the sort of TV fluff that many regard as camp (or worse). But you know what? He also entertained a lot of folks. He was a showman of the old school, and he will be missed.
If the audience last night in NYC is any indication, “Click” may well turn out to be a pretty crushing disappointment for folks. Theatre MAYBE 1/3 full, very low on the kiddies at a 7 PM show, and minimal audience response throughout.
It’s not a bad concept or script all-told, but Sandler can’t handle the balance between the sentimental and silly well enough to make it work.
Joe, agreed. Spelling once said that if he had to entertain 300 critics or 30million viewers, he’d choose the viewers every time.
But where would the world be without Starsky & Hutch, Dynasty, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, The Mod Squad, etc (apart from not having a bunch of bad movies adaptations)
Shocker! Shortly after visiting the editing room of POTC2, Moriarty saw and loved it. Never saw that coming.
I’m glad that people were entertained by Spelling’s shows, but his quote sounds like typical self-justification from someone who didn’t know how to produce anything other than cheese.
Maybe so, Jef. But what kind of world would this be without a delicious cheeseburger now and then?
Sure, I just chafe at the complacency and self-aggrandizement inherent in that Spelling quote.
Even Jerry Bruckheimer still intends to win an Oscar one day, when another Black Hawk Down-type movie happens and the circumstances are right.
Well, Jerry Bruckheimer has actually made some decent stuff. Plus, he’s won multiple Emmys, so an Oscar is at least within some random realm of possibility.
But I think that quite is just Spelling being realistic. His shows were never going to be critical darlings, but hey – they’re some of the most popular shows ever. At some point he probably realised that is better than having 100 shows adored by critics but axed immediately when nobody watched.
I’m not the world’s biggest Bruckheimer fan, either, but he gets full props for REMEMBER THE TITANS (especially since it’s one of my least favorite genres: inspirational sports drama), and his TV shows by and large are pretty smart.
What do people in this industry get honored for… finding the sweet spot in audience interest or making the highest quality shows/movies as perceived in that year?
Like Kauffman & Crane, Danny Thomas, Sheldon Leonard, Stephen Bochco, David E. Kelley, Garry Marshall, Stephen J Cannell, and DesiLu, Spelling hit that sweet spot in a way that very, very few producers have.
Is William Shatner a great actor? Well, shouldn’t we celebrate his remarkable ability to connect and reconnect with the hearts & minds of audiences for three generations now? It’s easy to laugh him off, but that achievement is not anything close to easy. He isn’t DeNiro – not by a long shot – but his is a standout. How do you honor that?
Consider this exchange between Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock while discussing the latter
So now we’re comparing Aaron Spelling with Hitchcock and Shakespeare? Your argument may be overextended.
Not at all. Just my way of telling you that even great artists respect the ability — and the challenge — of attracting large, appreciative audiences. Shakespeare wrote for a theater that was located just a few doors down from a bear-baiting pit. He knew his audience, and produced product for them. The same can be said for Aaron spelling. I’m not saying both products are of equal worth. I’m saying that each man — like Hitchcock — very likely would have preferred large audiences to critical approval. And I’m not saying that’s good or bad. I’m saying it is. Also: The overwhelming majority of what we generally consider great films, from “Citizen Kane” to “Star Wars” and beyond, were produced as commercial entertainments. RKO didn’t hire Orson Welles to change the facde of cinema. They hired him to make the studio a pile of money. They didn’t get quite what they wanted. But that’s another story.
You are correct. But I’m saying, there’s a difference between a great artist who is also a populist, and someone like Aaron Spelling who was only a populist. I think also that Hitchcock found critical approval to be very, very important, especially once people like Truffaut started showering him with praise.
This brings up the question of whether producers are artists. Certainly they live with the material and fight for the material probably more than any other single person on any show. But does that make them good artists or are they just able to recognize other good artists, give them money and artistic freedom, and steer the results?
“But does that make them good artists or are they just able to recognize other good artists, give them money and artistic freedom, and steer the results?”
Maybe they’re patrons?
I guess the crucial difference is producers must answer to investors, must make movies for an audience, must sell his movie to other parties…in other words, he is a salesman. But obviously some producers out there have generated amazing product with a noticeable artistic stamp. So calling Hitchcock a populist artist is really not the same as calling Spelling a populist producer. The art is not so much in creating the show as much as in creating the environment to make it happen…the art of the deal, to use a cliche.