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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
You’re absolutly right…Sony is done making “Movies” it appears…
hopefully that will change because i like “movies” and i’d hate for others to follow Sony’s lead.
–RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
when is the sandler/cheadle drama that binder is doing coming out? Is that this year?
IMDB just says 2006 for the release date of the Sandler/Cheadle/Binder movie.
OK, I’ll ask the obvious question: Isn’t it possible Columbia decided to bail because this particular movie is a Western?
Bailed on Walk The Line because it was about country music, so yes… always possible… but why go so far into development if they were going to bail on genre?
So can we all agree that a studio uninterested in producing adult dramas is yet another step in the death of mainstream cinema?
Once Columbia TriStar Pictures became Sony it felt a lot less like a film studio to me and more like a company arm making corporate product that just happened to be on film.
Some of them are good (Spiderman) but most feel like they have about as much soul as a one night stand.
Products exported by a multinational corporation so that they can be imported by as many cultures as possible to turn a profit.
Just like the Sony technology label itself, there is the pure brand with higher standards and the lesser brand made with cheap labout that just happens to have the Sony corporate name on it. People buy it just the same.
Sadly, I think Sony would argue not that they are getting out of the movie business, but that they are indeed getting into it.
Let me preface everything I’m about to say with a disclaimer: I often write for Cowboys & Indians magazine (did the cover piece on Sam Shepard keyed to “Don’t Come Knocking” a few months back), so I have a vested interest in the revival and survival of Westerns. OK?
Now: Why hasn’t Fox released “Banditas” yet? Has anyone heard anyting about Brad Pitt’s Jessie James movie? (I know it has been bumped from a fall 2006 date to early 2007.) Could it be that there’s bad buzz attached to both films? And if so: Could THAT be why Columbia had second thoughts about doing a Western?
Joe, I remember Crowe being the cover story for Cowboys & Indians a while back. He’s an authentic horseman so he’s a natural for a western.
Let me give a female perspective on this sorry situation. Women the world over would love to see Russell Crowe on a horse in a western, and if they drag their dates and menfolk, as they did for Gladiator, I see a ready made audience. There’s a lot of sex appeal potential in a western, with the right star and right script.
Too many recent westerns have starred aging, grizzled character actors. Because of that, it’s likely a mistake to dimiss adult audience’s interest in such a classic genre. It even translates well when it’s set in modern times. Brokeback Mountain, anyone?
And look at the popularity of Deadwood on TV!! That show attracts a well mixed audience… male, female, adults of all ages.
Hatchling: I agree. And I would add that Kevin Costner isn’t exactly “grizzled,” and “Open Range” did fairly well at the box office, didn’t it?
Open Range was made for much cheaper than $60m. And Costner probably didn’t ask for lots of money…just the opportunity to make a good movie (on a budget).
Situation sounds more like Pascal decided to clamp down and try to not get fired (at least until Spiderman 3).
Wait, is that another cartoon about penguins on the schedule?
I’m surprised they even considered making a western so soon after The Missing bombed.
I’ve been saying one of those Maggie-Q-Lost-Dog-Prayers that Click doesn’t do too well tomorrow…
please please please, whisper whisper whipser, god is good, god is good
Maybe someone at Sony saw The Quick and the Dead?
The Missing = grizzled aging star, Tommy Lee Jones.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of the “ole geezer” and saw the film, in the theater.
I enjoyed Open Range a lot more, though, because of it’s sex appeal factor.
My point is simply that Hollywood is out of touch with adults, and it increasingly goes for the formula films marketed to kids, mainly boys, because it’s an easy no brainer to just make another comic book sequel or horror film.
The endangered species is the adult film audience, and to an even larger extent, adult females. If the studios can’t figure out that women and men alike enjoy well-made films, including westerns with appealing stars and intriguing stories, it’s hopeless. People will get out of the habit of going to the movies due to repeated disappointments and also problems with the theater experience itself. It’s already happening.
Yet, the kids are fickle… what attracts a geek to the megaplex today, may not interest them in the future, so gearing everything to them, as if they will be static and are the only audience that matters, is folly. Sony is condemning itself to inconsequence.
I think the studios don’t know what to do with adult audiences, who seem to be increasingly staying home and watching movies on their DVDs. For those of us who enjoy the entire movie-going experience, it’s disheartening to say the least. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you find it true that the ‘adult’ woman in a marriage/relationship is usually the one who chooses which movie to see?
In 2000 Dreamworks was completely surprised at the number of women who loved Gladiator, they’d been aiming it at the male audience. Apparently the studios still don’t know what women like. Do they think we’re turned off by a few beheadings? Pish tosh, give us the complete package of a movie with a good story, actors who can act, and great direction, and most times we’ll show up at the theaters.
Of course a sexy and commanding lead doesn’t hurt, but is not always necessary. I have three favorite films so far this year and two of them are Westerns with nary a sexy lead in sight. Besides United 93, I loved The Proposition and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, a graphically violent outback Western and a modern day Western starring grizzled Tommy Lee Jones.
I’ll go to a blockbuster or two in the summer months but it’s mindless fluff that leaves the head the minute you exit the theater and never touches the heart. My advice to the studios is as I stated above: story story story, actors who can act and great direction. Throw in some breathtaking cinematography and I’m all yours, guys, I’ll race to the theater on opening day.
This just in….Click opened to almost $15 million. Not sure if that is a record for Sandler, probably just about the same area as Longest Yard. Regardless, I’m expecting Big Daddy grosses from this one.
Real shocker, but Nacho Libre and Fast and the Furious dropped huge. However, Cars and the other big movies all stabilized. Looks like another strong weekend at the box office, higher than last year, again.
You are right, Geoff. Looks like the 6th straight up weekend and it should get really storng from here with the back-to-back of SR and POTC. Cars has firmed up nicely. I noticed DP raised his estiamte to around $220 million. After all the chatter following the opeing if it makes that level it will barely qualify as disappointing. I still own RGC shares which firmed up this week on a new recommendatin from Lehman. I think it goes higher as the box office comps stay positive through August.
I read that CLick was just 7% off Sandler’s best ever opening.
it may have been a misstep to develop 3:10 to yuma but pulling the plug was the right move. suggesting it’s a sign of where the studio wants to go with its content is a bit of a stretch. it’s far easier to suggest it’s a sign that the studio simply didn’t want to embarrass itself. 3:10/yuma would have flopped hard and stank up the place. anyone associated with it would have a lot of explaining to do.
kids, action, thrills – make money. remakes of westerns don’t, typically. if you want to roll the dice, well… i wouldn’t make 3:10/yuma for a dollar – because i know it would be an embarrassment.
i don’t blame sony. if they want to make money with a slate filled with low-budget thrillers, and horror, (and very expensive tentpoles) so be it.
you think ‘yuma’ would turn a profit. i disagree. of course, that’s purely hypothetical. but, the safe bet is on a low-budget horror remake (or something of equivalent value), not a mid-budget western remake that targets the adult audience. can you really argue that? if it was your $50 million dollars would you argue that?
it’s just so unsexy. it could make a profit if you cut the budget way down (and i don’t see why you couldn’t – it’s a western. you would have to cut pricey talent, though). but, a low-budget remake of a western – that has no big stars – is even more unsexy.
as a studio i would make the same decision. as a writer, maybe not. but as a consumer – would i see 3:10 to yuma (either at the theater or on disc)? nope. that much i know for sure. i mean, really — “two for 3:10 to yuma, please”. i couldn’t do it.
i don’t blame sony. besides, does anybody want to work with russell crow anymore?
I love Westerns. Good westerns that is. Some of my favourite films are Once Upon A Time in the West, Unforgiven, The Searchers and Open Range…I love Clint Eastwood’s older stuff too, like the Outlaw Josey Wales and the Man with No Name trilogy. Those are classic, classic, classic.
The Proposition is a great example of Western done right.
I agree with hatchling, about Deadwood. There’s definitely an audience for that style of storytelling. Deadwood’s my favourite show on TV right now. It has great writing, strong themes and fantastic acting.
Westerns are an adult genre when done right. I don’t know many people my age (under 25) who would list a western as their first choice when given the choice between a western, sci fi and superhero film. There’s too many young people who only have a limited view of history in film. They see cowboys, indians, racism and mysoginistic tendancies, without understanding that when properly portrayed, those were just a fact of life back then, and not any sort of modern message. I don’t think anyone can watch Deadwood and say that the show promotes running whores.
Anyhow, I think a Western with Crowe would have gone a long way to securing the youthful generation’s interest. Crowe being the tough hero is always a draw. What 20 year old guy doesn’t want to be Maximus, and what girl doesn’t want him to fight for her?
Hopefully someone else picks up 3:10 to Yuma.
Despite Crowe’s legal problems, he’s still a huge star. Tom Cruise’s weirdness didn’t hurt MI3 very much, and if Crowe was playing a tough-guy part it would match his off-screen persona.
Kojled, what exactly do you base your idea that it would be a flop on other than ‘it’s so unsexy’? I’d see it.
I may have posted this elsewhere a long time ago. But to repeat: I teach film history classes at University of Houston and Houston Community College. And I have to tell you: Every semester, I have a few students who tell me that they’d NEVER seen a Western before I screened “Stagecoach” or “The Searchers” or “Rio Bravo” for them. And, mind you, these aren’t foreign exchange students. (I’ve had students from Cameroon who know who John Wayne is.) No, these are American-born 18-to-25-year-olds. Most of them Texas natives. Go figure.
I would expect a student from Cameroon bright enough to make it to America would know John Wayne better than your standard American student.
It sounds like Sony figures that the grosses they would expect would be similar to those of Open Range, which did very little business internationally.
Shouldn’t right-wingers be upset that an all-American genre is falling into disrepair because the studios are letting foreigners dictate their business decisions?
Hey Joe,
Maybe that’s why they’re going to community college.
Just fucking with you.
I once had a film professor tell me that none of her kids had ever seen a black & white movie. I usually resist statements like this because it’s usually bullshit. Hadn’t they seen Jay-Z’s video for “99 Problems”? Or, Michael Jackson’s video for “Scream”? Or, Schindler’s List? Or, Clerks? You just have to think outside the box.
The same thing applies to Westerns. Are you saying none of your students have seen an episode of Deadwood? Or, Will Smith’s Wild Wild West? Or, Young Guns? Or, Dances with Wolves? Or, Legends of the Fall. Or, Brokeback Mountain. I know none of these movies are what some people might hold up as good examples, but that’s not what we’re talking about. You just have to think outside the box.
BTW: Why would you show your students Stagecoach? I can see The Searchers or Rio Bravo, but Stagecoach is a bit…sluggish.
I am glad to see, however, that Sony has cast Halle Berry in the Balki part in the feature version of Perfect Strangers.
I show “Stagecoach” for a number of different reasons, not the least of which being its significance as the movie that made John Wyane a star. Also, it pretty much established many (if not most) of the cliches and archetypes we associate with Westerns. And it features Oscar winner Thomas Mitchell, whose record for most first-rate movies in a single year — 1939 — remains unequaled even to this day. (Think about it: In addition to “Stagecoach,” he also appeared in “Gone With the Wind,” “Only Angels Have Wings,” “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” all in 1939. Geez, somebody should make a movie about his life during that single year.)
BTW, Jimmy: Your professor may be more on the money than you think. “Schindler’s List” is now 12 years old. Most of his students (like mine) weren’t old enough to see it when it was first released, and probably aren’t likely to now.
Likewise, “Young Guns” and “Dances With Wolves” aren’t on their radar. You have to remember: Just because something is available on video or cable doesn’t mean 18-to-25-year-olds are watching. (As for “Deadwood” — what percentage of the population subscribes to HBO?) If you hang out too long with a film-savvy crowd (like, we proud geeks on the blog), it can skew your ideas about what real-world people are seeing and enjoying. Trust me: I, too, have had students who have never seen a B&W movie. As for “Clerks” — well, it’s 12 years old too, right?
I understand your point, but I refuse to give up hope. That’s why I also mentioned the music videos of Michael Jackson and Jay-Z. And, Wild Wild West the movie. I’m sure some kids have seen ’em.
If Jay-Z and Wild Wild West are what you’re _hoping_ kids have seen, then we are in a poor situation indeed.
There’s also Sin City, God Night, And good Luck, and the openig of Kill Bill: Vol. 2.
99 Problems is a great video, directed by Mark Romanek.
It’s true kids probably aren’t really acquainted with Westerns and b/w movies. On the flipside, for those of us young enough, admittedly we had to try to do that…it didn’t just happen, it wasn’t in the air. And are we acquainted with what kids have seen (or played)? Culture keeps moving. All I hope for is literacy so that people watch intelligently, no matter what their taste.
You’re right, enough literacy will always lead people to the classics, in whatever media.
Personally, though, as a former USC film student, I was astounded at how narrow so many of my fellow students’ viewing habits were. I was expecting a gaggle of Tarantinos and instead I found a bunch of Michael Bays.
jeffmcm
you talking to me? are you talking to me?
i don’t know what makes me think a western would flop. my opinion. based on observation. you think it would rock the house? shit man – put $50 million on the table and make it, then.
okay, here’s the bet: your studio makes your western for $30-50m, my studio makes my remake of a japanese horror movie for $10m plus prints and advertising. i get some up and coming hottie to play the ‘damsel in distress’ in a creepy haunted house (or whatever the venue is) and you get whoever you want to play grizzled cowboys riding horses or wagons on the dusty trail (who meet up with the bad guys, shot their six-shooters, etc), and we’ll see who comes out ahead after the theatrical run and dvd release. ready, set, go.
don’t get me wrong. movies like ‘unforgiven’ are wonderful for everyone involved. while, teeny bopper horror that turns a quick buck even though the story is full of holes make things lousy for everyone (except the audience munching popcorn). however, expecting more than one unforgiven-type success every, oh say, 3-10 years, is asking lightning to strike twice (every year that you try).
So your answer to ‘why would it flop?’ is ‘it just would’, correct? It sounds like you don’t care for westerns in general?
And the teen horror movie you describe makes things bad for everyone, including the audience.
While westerns may not tear up the box office on a regular basis, I think it’s foolish to automatically write them off. Remember, Open Range made $58 million just a few years ago with a 140 minute running time, R rating, middle of August release date and long past his prime Kevin Costner in the lead. That is pretty damn impressive.
Three points to consider:
1) In the studio era, studios had diverse schedules of releases: comedies, westerns, musicals, horror movies, mysteries, etc. Concentrating on just the two or three sure-fire genres is bad for business, long-range.
2) Westerns don’t have to be expensive; in fact, they were the cheapest films to produce in the old days, hence the plethora of B-westerns and TV series. Still true today: OPEN RANGE only cost $25 million.
3) The studios are so busy making movies for their hip-and-trendy pals in NY & LA that they forget there’re tens of millions of folks out there in the “flyover” states that still love westerns. Ted Turner knew that–one reason why he’s so damn rich. (Another is that he never hired Sofia Coppola to make a movie.)
I just read Fincher’s Chronicles (a.k.a. Zodiac) is now being released in January. Is this true? Isn’t January the kiss of death for non-Oscar hopefuls? Is Fincher trying to prove a possibly good movie can come out early in the year?
BTW: Where’s DP’s Box Office commentary?
And “Catch and Release” has already been bumped around the release schedule for almost a full year. (As I understand it, it’s in the can, ready to go, but due to “release schedule conflicts” was pushed from Q2 2006 to Q1 2007.) Every studio has had trouble marketing adult-female-centric films of late. If “Devil Wears Prada” does some business? That’ll help.
Wait a minute. People are saying creative filmmaking is on its way to a dirt nap because Sony is stopping in its tracks on a remake?
I think there’s a little bit of a misrepresentation with. If adults wanted to make films for adults, and see box-office substantial box-office returns, it wouldn’t be with movies like Muloholland Drive, it would be with Seasbicuit. I think this has been Hollywood’s major folly, they tend to think anyone who turns their nose at the Fast and the Furious must be hungering for abrasive, innovative cinema. The audience that shuns anything that’s “weird”, which means Charlie Kaufman or Marvel Comics or Stephen Sommers. It’s either cheese fries or o’deuvres, no one’s whipping up mashed potatoes.
I’m simply saying, from a business standpoint, I think Hollywood is making mistakes, but would everyone really be happy to have a instead of a Spider-Man The “movies for adults” that a lot of us enjoy, Pulp Fictio, The Godfather etc…they were all very popular when I was in High School as well.
So I think the problem is, we, and studios, have been associating “adult” with “intelligent”.
Huh?
Jeff, I felt exactly the same way at USC. Once for a production design class we had to watch Citizen Kane, however we were excused if we’d already seen it. Of the 12-15 or so students in the class I was the only person who’d ever seen it. I mean come the fuck on. It’s CITIZEN KANE.
USC frequently struck me as a breeding ground for producers, agents and studio executives.
There are definitely plenty of those there, but I think it depends on which part of the film school you’re in.
Mangold might have done better if, when casting “3:10 to Yuma,” he didn’t go from one controversial star with an underperforming last movie (Tom Cruise) to another (Russell Crowe).
OK, if we
James: You bring up a good point. Seriously: Name the actors out there in their 20s and 30s — hell, in their early 40s — you would believe riding a horse or firing a six-shooter. I would buy Matthew McConaughey (and not just because he’s a native Texan), and yes, Russell Crowe. And…? (I might also add Aaron Eckhart, if only because he’s fresh in my mind — finally saw “Thank You for Smoking” tonight, and really liked it.)
I’m a good ten years older than anyone in your classes, Joe, and my exposure to Westerns is almost exclusively the ones I was forced to watch in various classes throughout the years (the only one I remember watching for class, by the way, was “Red River”, but I’m sure there were more).
Take away “Blazing Saddles” and taking my kids to see “Wild Wild West” and you’ve taken away all the westerns I’ve seen through my own free will. Add in a friend forcing me to watch “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” and my mother taking me to a revival of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and you may have exhausted the entirity of the westerns I’ve seen (unless you include the music video for “Wanted Man” by RATT from 1984/85). I even managed to avoid “Young Guns” despite being in the target demo when that came out.
And despite all the TV westerns crowding my television on Saturday and Sunday afternoons when I was growing up, I managed to avoid “Gunsmoke” and “Bonanza” and “The Rifleman” and all the rest.
I love classic movies. I could watch nothing but Cary Grant movies for weeks at a time and be happy, but plop me in front of a western, and I’m immediately out.
Some people, even Texans, just don’t react well to westerns no matter how good they might be.
RDP… I beg you, get on Netflix, run to Blockbuster… just whatever you do rent Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon a Time In The West.” Or if you need to up the manliness, try “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.”
These two movies will change your life. Yes, they’re Westerns. Yes they’re primarly shoot-em-ups with only one female character between the both of then. But they’re also movie operas of the highest order. And they are more alive than any movie you have seen in the past five years or will see in the next five. I guaran-damn-tee it.
I’m actually jealous that you get the exhilaration of seeing them for the first time.
(Open Range is on AMC right now)
RDP: You may expect me to argue with you, or put you down, but I’m not. Why? Because I can well understand that certain people have little regard for certain genres. For example: I really don’t enjoy what Roger Ebert refers to as Dead Teen-Ager Movies. That is, I have never really understood the appeal of movies in which (mostly) young people exist only to be sliced and diced in grisly detail. And I don’t want to see older folks hacked up, either. I would liken such dehumanizingly violent movies to porn, but frankly, I find porn to be less morally offensive. (Mind you, these are MY standrads — I don’t expect everyone to adhere to my standards, just as I don’t expect everyone to agree with my reviews.)Indeed, unless I’m being paid to watch (i.e., review) a slasher film, I avoid it like the plague.
To be specific: I have never seen the remakes of “House of Wax,” “The Hills Have Eyes,” or “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” And I never watched “Saw” or Saw II.” Now, if I ever get assigned to review “Saw III,” then, of course, I’ll have to rent those flicks and watch them on DVD. But if I can avoid that, I will.
Josh Holloway from “Lost” could be a great untapped resource for the genre.
I didn’t really expect an argument or a put-down. I was just offering myself as an example of what you were talking about – a person who has seen virtually no westerns and has very little interest in the genre.
I thought of another western I’ve seen, though. I did go see “The Quick and the Dead” when it came out, but I’ve been trying to forget that experience ever since.
I’ve wanted to see some of the Eastwood/Leone westerns. I’m pretty sure I even have the DVD of “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”; I just haven’t motivated myself enough to sit down and watch it (and yet, I did get all the way through Aeon Flux a couple of weeks ago. My priorities are all out of whack sometimes).
It’s funny about the Dead Teenager genre. When I was a kid, those were about the only movies I watched. I’ve seen “Friday the 13th, Part II” probably 30 times, for example (and that was wihout the benefit of a VCR. I just watched it every stinkin’ time it came on HBO).
Now that I’m well into my 30s, my desire to see another slasher movie has dipped to zero, though I end up seeing them all anyway since my wife loves horror movies (this is also why, by the way, I’ve seen every piece of crap Angelina Jolie movie that’s come out).
Jimmy, it’s true that Zodiac has moved to Jan. While I never saw it as an Oscar movie, the fact that it’s moved to January makes me think the movie isn’t even good let alone oscar-calibre.
I don’t really understand why people are upset that 18-year-olds aren’t familiar with the western genre. Western movies aren’t frequently made these days and, to be honest, how many teenagers are gonna head to Blockbuster and pick up a western. While I don’t necessarily agree with the description I’m about to give, a lot probably think westerns have the exact same plot, little dialogue and barely any action.
Now, I’m not the biggest fan of the genre (Open Range and Shane are probably the two best that I’ve seen) but I haven’t seen about 99% of the westerns ever made. It’s just a fact that not every school-going young person (which I am) can watch an entire genre of films that many people grew up watching.
I’m sad at the canceling of any quality-sounded project, and the thought of Russell Crowe finally making a western was appealing, maybe Sony just didn’t like the thought of James Mangold? Yes, Walk the Line made over $100mil but most didn’t forsee that and the reason it was a success was not Mangold. Add that to Crowe’s recent Cinderella box-office and it probably didn’t seem smart to them.
Of course, we all know they’re stupid. š
BTW, Click should make about $40mil, while Cars should settle around $25mil for second place.
Regarding Zodiac(now called The Chronicles according to AICn… yech what an awful title)opening in january, I’ve read that the WIDE release is in January, but there’s an Academy qualifying run planned in the end of December. So if anything they think they have a better film than they did before.
Of course it’s probably moot if they stick with that title.
it’s an eclectic list from SOny…but as much as I hate remakes I was looking forward to Mangold’s Yuma picture. I don;t like Russell Crowe much but I think he would bring in a wide range of people, even me. How stupid to can it.
I share your sentiments re. Westerns RDP but I have to agree with the Robot, Once upon a time in the west is one entertaining extravaganza. I don;t receommend the good, the bad, and the ugly, as much as I would recommend For a Few Dollars more for the Eastwood pictures.
I would even recommend a quasi western to help you recover from The Quick and the Dead like:
SMoke Signals (does my Indian heritage proud, what a great movie)
Way out West–Laurel and Hardy at their best with the most brilliant rendition of the Song “On the trail of the Lonesome Pine”
I have a major soft spot for “My Darling Clementine” and “Destry rides again” too, but that might be too Western for you.
There are others too that you might like just becasue the acting is so good, like Bad Day at Black Rock.
It sounds like RDP leads a miserable life. His wife forces him to see horror and Jolie movies. (Is there a difference?) He’d rather watch Aeon Flux than a Wester. how does he find the will to keep going?
Crow is right about the Leone movies, though. They’re classics.
A limited, Oscar-qualifying run for Zodiac makes sense. Granted, Fincher has never made a movie that got a nomination. I seriously doubt a movie about the hunt of a serial killer will warm the blood of Academy voters. Everyone seems to be hunting that elusive Silence of the Lambs magic. It ain’t going to happen.
And the Oscar goes to…
Anthony Edwards?
Seven and Fight Club got one nomination each, both in the tech categories. Fincher seems like a director Oscar would like to reward if only he made something “respectable” enough.
Palmtree: Maybe he should make a Western?
Now that would be something Joe!
Saw your piece on An Inconvienent Truth via Jeff Wells’ site. Good stuff.
Aladdin: Thanks. Looking back, I really think that, no kidding, the 2004 guest-hosting gig on “Saturday Night Live” really loosened up Al Gore. Or at least enabled the public to see him for the first time as more relaxed and engaging than he appeared during the 2000 campaign. BTW: There’s an excerpt from that “SNL” show in the new Al Franken documentary that’s due in theatres later this year.
Finally saw Inconvenient Truth and I must say it was a pleasure to see a politician who is so thoroughly engaged with facts. I’m also a fan of all the animated graphics. Gore introduced the screening I attended and I must say, he still hasn’t completely loosened up as speaker. I think one guy in the audience screaming, “Stop complaining!” kinda threw him off though.
I’d watch a Fincher western, but only if he shot it in black and white.
Palmtree,
must it be in Black and white truly? I’d like Fincher to do Westworld–i think it would be a cool remake by him.
However, the guy who did the Cell (did I HATE this movie…even though it had some good ideas) is doing it thus far, althout I am not 100% sure that’s going (or that it will be 2007–there’s too much not done yet).
..and what in heck do we need facts for (re. Gore)? Americans have never relied on them before and we continue to go barrelling happily forward don;t we? All hail Plankton!
Crowe’s already done a western: QUICK AND THE DEAD. (And RDP, the reason you didn’t like it may be due to the fact that it was a parody of Leone’s westerns, thus you had no point of reference.)
I didn’t really get into westerns until I was in college, but now I love ’em and realize what an amazing genre it is. If you cannot sit through RIO BRAVO without being completely giddy with delight, then you are beyond resuscitation.
Quentin Tarantino once told me — well, OK, me and everybody else who’s interviewed him during the past 15 or so years, I guess — that he shows “Rio Bravo” to every woman he ever gets romantically involved with. “And she’d better fuckin’ like it, or else.”
Lota, just kidding…in keeping with the two neglected genres of this thread.
I heard/read that about Tarantino too, Joe. So the next question: What movie would you choose as litmus test of compatability to a potential romantic interest?
For me, a gal’s gotta dig on “This Is Spinal Tap” for there to be long term potential. And extra points of course if she rails against the cult of “The Shawshank Redemption.”
I must admit: It’s hard for me to imagine falling in the first place for someone who didn’t love “The 400 Blows.”
What’s in a movie name
Well I love RIo Bravo because of that train-wreck Dean Martin, but QT is Not my type so won’t say it too loud. Don’t like Truffaut much or much of the New Wave [I prefer Duvivier, Carne and the rest of the poetic realistes], sorry Joe!
I do absolutely love This is Spinal Tap but don’t get too excited Robot! Everything goes to eleven. Nigel Tufnel may be my hero (next to Frankenstein’s monster), and he was dashing when he wore his black shirt with Gumby in the pocket.
i guess i have movie tests too.
David Fincher will get his reward when he makes something Academy-accessible.
I couldn’t be with someone who didn’t appreciate Hitchcock. If somebody uttered “they’re silly old movies” or something along those lines I’d dump ’em right there and then.