Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Lloyd Grove Exclusive: Universal Chairman Says 'Miami Vice' Does Not Suck


You know me: I am rarely inclined to allow the last word on all matters cinematic to anyone but Roger Friedman. When Fox’s gossiptard revealed word on the playground last month saying Michael Mann’s upcoming Miami Vice was “a dud, and a major one at that,” that was pretty much all the advice I needed to stay away.
Alas, there is one man in New York with the high-voltage veto power to supersede Friedman when the chips are down. Of course I am referring to film festival dessert victim and only-occasionally-credulous Daily News gossip Lloyd Grove, who writes today that Universal chairman Marc Shmuger (above) has at last gotten to “G” in his trip through the damage-contRolodex:

“All of us agree this is a brilliant movie from the first frame to the last — a great Michael Mann movie,” Shmuger bravely insisted. “It’s definitely opening on time, and we’ll be screening the final version all next week.” …

And Shmuger defended Mann’s maddening post-production “process” — screening the film at least once a day, then obsessively adding and subtracting dialogue, pauses and even frames, then redoing all the changes in what I hear is a desperate effort to fix the unfixable.

“Michael Mann’s process is exhausting, it is intense, and some people are not up to the challenge,” Shmuger said. “Either they keep up with him or they fall by the wayside. It creates some raw feelings along the way.”

And not least among Universal’s accountants, who are walking especially gingerly after an official budget overrun of what Shmuger pegs around $15 million (previous reports–including Friedman’s–had the original $120 million cost ballooning as high as $180 million). I should have known to count on Grove for the real front-office spin, and I only hope he can pass along some of the chatter between Shmuger and the next name on his cold-call list: Miami-based Ignore Magazine, which noted (via Nikki Finke) that “Miami’s citizens are being forced to gulp down his deplorable, unneeded revision. Sorry Michael Mann, nobody wants to see this movie,” before reimagining a cast headlining Johnny Knoxville and Marlon Wayans. At least Uni could cut the cost in half–maybe even by three-quarters if Shmuger could persuade Keenan to write and direct.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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