April 25, 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
Paramount had some winners, but the red ink is still red on Mission: Impossible III.
And just how red is that by now? Paramount likely has around $217 million from M:I3 by now, but the marketing budget isn’t well known… And neither are any other direct deals with the creators and talent.
Next summer is overloaded, but at least we can say that there are only four $200 million films on the schedule (Spidey 3, Pirates 3, Potter V, and Transformers).
Potter V is slated for a $150 million budget like Potter IV, and expect it to hit $175 million at most. Transformers for $200 million? Sheesshhh.
There will be some money made – lots on Pirates, though P3 may be the next MEFE…
Slated for the same budget as P2, I wouldn’t expect anymore surprises from this franchise as far as production spending. Unless you meant FGME, which I doubt. =)
I will give next summer credit for having more sequels and projects that have at least been in some capacity of demand.
How can you say $175 million “at most” for the next “Harry Potter?” The last one was the second most popular in the franchise at $290 million, and the only other summer installment did $250. I understand it will have stiff competition, but it will get TONS of media coverage, especially if Book 7 is released simultaneously.
Paramount has about $217 million at 55% of WW bos office. DP says production including false starts was $180 million. Other articles on the Cruise fiasco claim marketing expenditures of $100 million. I think DP may have quoted that as well.
If I understand Cruise’s gross points, C/W was getting something like 15% of WW box office off the top. That is $60 million and it comes right off Paramount’s $217 share of the global box office. That leaves $157 million for Paramount against a production and marketing budget of $280 million. So before other windows the film could be over $100 million in the whole.
Let’s say home video revenue equals 1 times domestic box office or $132 million. At a 60% margin, that is operating profits of $80 million. Paramount is down to losses of $20-50 million now.
TV rights at 35% of domestic gross is another $46 million. That would cover all US and Intl, broadcast, cable, and pay. Say an 80% margin for another $35 million in operating profits.
So maybe Paramount gets to breakeven or loses $10-20 million.
Those numbers make sense? DP? Anybody?
Yeah, 200m for budgets or for grosses?
The more pictures from Transformers that get leaked, the more I think it’s going to be a flop.
Yeah I don’t see Transformers doing any better than something like The Day After Tomorrow and predict it’ll only do about Bad Boys II numbers. Although a totally kickass Superbowl trailer could change that.
Oh yeah, I’d be curious to know what were peoples’ favorite movies of the summer – you know, art instead of business.
My top picks would be:
A Prairie Home Companion
A Scanner Darkly
Talladega Nights
:Sigh:
Why did all the best movies of the summer underperform (excepting A Prairie Home Companion and An Inconvenient Truth)?
A Scanner Darkly couldn’t even make back its $8 mil budget, though it should easily do that on DVD. It’s still a damn good movie that more people should have seen.
Scoop has the best one-note joke I may have ever seen. Woody and upper class Brits never gets old. Other aspects may have been subpar, but that puts it as a solid Woody entry, especially with his output lately. It got hurt by reviewers who felt burned, which is a shame.
Miami Vice would have been a success if it was Bad Boys III. But it’s not. It’s infinitely better. I remember talking to somebody who was disappointed that it wasn’t tongue-in-cheek, but that would have destroyed it the way it so often destroys remakes of TV shows.
Ultimately, the conclusion to find from this summer is the same conclusion. People like seeing something familiar. They want sequels and Will Ferrell. They want to be told that people hate their jobs and that there will always be a comfortable place for their kids to spend with talking animals. It’s hard to look at the big successes and see something really original.
jeffmcm: Yeah, 200m for budgets or for grosses?
Budgets. Otherwise Shrek 3 would have been on that list. Plus, the chances of Transformers making $200 million? Questionable at best. Case in point…
Josh Massey: How can you say $175 million “at most” for the next “Harry Potter?” The last one was the second most popular in the franchise at $290 million, and the only other summer installment did $250.
Tofu: Potter V is slated for a $150 million budget like Potter IV, and expect it to hit $175 million at most.
And on M:I3…
Direwolf: Let’s say home video revenue equals 1 times domestic box office or $132 million.
Home video sales could equal domestic or just a little lower… Before rental… And International home video sales… And International rentals. Yum.
Danny Boy: A Scanner Darkly couldn’t even make back its $8 mil budget…
Not getting beyond 263 theaters in release is the clear reason for this result. If you aren’t going from 50 to 2500, then you’re never going to hit the numbers you want. Count me in on being thankful that Miami Vice wasn’t Braindead Boyz 3.
All right! The summer is over so maybe we can stop talking so much about all these box office business stuff. It’s not our money so why should we care about it so much. Let’s go back to debating about the merits of movies and whether Brokeback was robbed or Trash actually sucked.
Oh man, with Potter’s release date in mid July, if book seven comes out on 7/7/07 (a very popular rumor) there’ll be a simultaneous feeding frenzy in bookstores and at the box office. It’d be fantastic dual marketing if the movie ends up being a few weeks after the last book comes out.
In movie five’s favor, it has the best action ending of any of the six books, from Harry’s History of Magic Examination til the end of the book it’s practically nonstop Pirates/Indiana Jones action scenes that feed off each other and build and build to the major climax. It’ll be the most interesting to see how they adapt, maybe they’ll finally allow a three hour runtime since it’s the only book that would absolutely require that length (six should be comparitively straightforward to adapt, and come in at Goblet length).
Adam
“Oh yeah, I’d be curious to know what were peoples’ favorite movies of the summer – you know, art instead of business.”
Three Times.
“Movie stars didn’t do badly this summer either. Depp, Hanks, Farrell,–”
I think you mean FERRELL, right?
In movie five’s favor, it has the best action ending of any of the six books, from Harry’s History of Magic Examination til the end of the book it’s practically nonstop Pirates/Indiana Jones action scenes that feed off each other and build and build to the major climax.
Yet who do they have directing #5? David Yates — a name hardly associated with stellar action sequences. The second unit director? Stephen Woolfenden — looks like he’s got a lot of experience, but nothing along the lines of brilliant action stuff.
So I’ll venture a guess that the HP5 action will be nothing special.
I did, Gou…. thanks… now corrected
I’ve also noticed that in the Harry Potter movies, their ‘non-stop action’ sequences tend to eliminate any character interaction, in the interest of compressing the running time, and for a non-reader of the books like me, feel monotonous and exhausting. Prisoner of Azkaban is the only movie where this didn’t happen.
Prisoner of Azkaban is the only movie where this didn’t happen.
Not incidentally, Cuaron’s the only director who’s had the cohones to actually adapt POA to film, rather than literally filming the book.
…which is why Azkaban is the best film.