Crash Participants Apparently Suffering Standard Operating Procedures
I was so looking forward to reading a New York Times movie business story that just plain told the story
April 19, 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
Personally, I would hope that nobody connected with the making of this movie ever makes any money off it.
Amen, Jeff.
You mean Haggis didn’t make the movie for the love of it?
He should probably get a better agent or lawyer if they can’t even negotiate an Oscar bonus into the contract.
Maybe Lionsgate used the profits to fund the next 30 Saw movies.
(Joke! Joke!)
Yes Jeff, because people shouldn’t get paid for a movie you didn’t like (but plenty of other people did).
Frankly, I could care less about these stories of people fighting for money. It was a small film, they knew it when they agreed what they were going to get paid, and if the movie had made no money, they wouldn’t be complaining now. But they’ll make it up with plenty of opportunities to do bigger work.
Actually, yes, I can’t disagree with your first statement, Me.
Well, Jeff, you at least have that power over your $10. Trying to have more say than that would be just plain undemocratic and uncapitalistic.
You’re not a filthy commie, are you? ;>
I think Commies would actually really like Haggis’ movie.
Are you naming names?
Well, we all know how much Ebert liked it, and he also liked An Inconvenient Truth, so logically…
He’ll never work in this town again.
By this town you mean…Chicago?
Dave you shilling for studios again? You and I both know that when a film likle CRASH breaks out, the first thing the studio does is increase their overheads and costs on the film to the point where when the books are opened up in court, they’ll look kinda clean but there’ll be a rotten smell wafting from the pages.. the smell of greed. You don’t know the exact deal Yari had with the team do you? So I think your speculation is just that… Should the prime participants get more? Yes they should – you defer salaries you better damn well get your dick sucked when the coin comes in… perhaps they should’ve pitched a CRASH franchise. Different city per film.
^^^That would be lovely, watching people yelling slurs at each other in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, but at the end of each one Ludacris frees a group of slave laborers and looses them into the wild, like a Johnny Appleseed of Chinese migrants.
i was thinking that fine dressed dude from Outcast but I hear ya.
He unleashes them into Chinatown no less…where no illegal immigrant has ever been exploited
I have no problem with the spirit of the deal being different, JBD. But I am speaking to the deal. And even without overhead gouging, there is no indication that my numbers are far from reality… at least according to the Waxman piece itself.
Deferments have, it seems, been paid.
And if the “profit participants” had a piece of Yari’s end (which is what Waxman explicitly states), since Lionsgate didn’t make the movie, but only bought distribution, and if they all agreed that all he’s gotten is $10 million… what do you expect?
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be lovely to have everyone be happy… but the deal is the deal. This wasn’t Aladdin with Robin Williams.
Are you saying they are due more than 30%/35%/40% if Yari’s profits?
It looks like Lionsgate will make a profit of about $30 million – $40 million on an ultimate investment on the movie of just over $20 million.
If Yari has a DVD deal with cast members, that could add another few million to what he is paying out… to a lot of people. But the number is not likely to be much bigger than what I am saying. Yari’s end may be $20 million – $30 million. Are you suggesting that he will be paying out more than 30% of that, split between a bunch of people?
“Should” is not an issue.
Trash, I mean, Crash needs to die!!!!!!
I hate you, you undeserved Oscar winner!
On a totally unrelated note, I love Brokeback Mountain.
Waterbucket!
It hasn’t been the same without ya man; those BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN days are sorely missed.
Welcome back.
Dave, my understanding is that there is an issue (or will be) with the ancillary deals. But yes a deal is a deal and I admit to some speculation outside the picture presented in the Waxman article. In the past there has been an understanding of going back to the table for some fiscal balancing. Of course this is not a legally required act. It sometimes is just good business if the parties want to continue a healthy relationship with those who’ll pay out again down the line. And I know it seems an easy call looking in from the other side..