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
Since you seem constrained as to what you can review, how about this: what are its box-office prospects now that you’ve seen it?
I am not constrained… I am just doing it on my schedule.
Legendary seems to be cofinancing a lot of WB’s recent movies including Superman Returns
Glad to see it’s not as bad as everybody thinks it will be. I’ve heard “maddeningly bizarre and fascinating” so that’s something.
Super, there’s no review embargo.
What are its box-office prospects now that you’ve seen it?
^^^^ Super, jeff provided yet another example of that tone DP mentioned in the other thread.
Jeff suffers from an untreated case of severe OCD.
OCD?
I’m trying to advance the conversation and I want to know, from someone who’s seen the movie, if it will sink or float.
I’ve seen it, and I think whatever it does in the opening weekend will represent a huge percentage of its domestic total. Then again, I think the movie is a disaster (with redeeming facets, all of which are visual), and disagree wildly with DP on the book, so ignore at your leisure.
That’s what I was looking for – I’m curious to know how the general public will react, is this going to be another The Village? Better or worse?
Another Village in terms of box office jeff? I think it’s going to do much worse than The Village at the BO? I don’t think it has any chance to hit $100 million. No box office star + mostly bad reviews + poor word of mouth + lots of competition (POTC2 still going strong, two new wide releases and a semi-wide release in Clerks II) = a decent opening and quick, hard fall. Lucky to reach $75 million domestic.
I think what we all really want to know is:
How is Giamatti’s hair?
What’s your take on the book, Jeremy?
And I think $80m is about the max for the film also… hard to imagine it not opening to the high 20s, at least.
I wonder whether some audiences will click in. You could really feel the predetermination in the Arclight last night. There is a lot to criticize there, but it’s not “the worst film in the last decade” and for me, it was much more interesting than The Village, which was slower than this AND had an obvious, irritating, unexplored gimmick twist in Act 3.
$26m opening, $73m total domestic.
I thought the book was total hagiography. Very readable, yes, but also completely suspect.
The screening last night bothers me the more I think about it. Feel free to hate the movie all you want, but please seethe quietly. Some people might actually be enjoying the film, and you’re ruining the experience for them.
That said, the movie failed for me on a structural level first; the over-earnestness of all that followed was more of an annoyance than anything else. It’s too bad. I actually thought the finale was pretty brilliantly staged. Shyamalan has a great eye; I just don’t know if he’ll ever deign to collaborate with another writer.
Box office: $20 million opening, sputters to $60 million domestic.
It might be less that, I think. $15M opening, to $50M domestic. But who knows. The Village opened well but it had a good trailer and was marketed as a straight Horror movie. This has been a fairy tale/then mystery, suspense/now back to fairy tale.
Maybe this is all a genius move by warners because until three weeks ago I had zero interest in seeing this, now I definitely want to see it to get my opinion.
i think you guys are seriously underestimating this film. despite what we net denziens know about Night and his lunacy, most mainstream viewers don’t know him other than ‘the guy who did Sixth Sense and Signs’.
I got 35-39 million for the opening weekend.
It might be less, you guys could very well be right, but i’m betting on the side of history.
qwiggles – LOL!
So, with Nina Jacobson getting axed, Night has the first laugh. But I suspect she’ll have the last one. Dave, your review has been one of the kinder I’ve read…. though Harry Knowles’ is almost surreal in its bizarre effort to like the movie.
do you really think Water will open around 35-39 (anghus) or 26 (wrect) or high 20s(DPo)?!
It just seems extraordinarily high. I almost wonder if it will get slacker-slapped by Clerks II even though CII is playing to less than 2000 theaters, Pirates is still hitting paydirt, and the youngsters will drag their parents (likely intended Water fodder) to Monster House.
But then I don;t know much about money.
I’m guessing $18 mill for opening weekend. Not that anyone cares, of course. 🙂