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
Forget the one-off game Thursday, the NFL really starts tomorrow. It’s easy to imagine the numbers tailing way off.
It’s easy to imagine the numbers tailing off because no one wants to see any of the new releases like The Covenant, Hollywoodland or the Protector. Can’t say the water cooler talk around work was about any three of these films. They may even be good, but no one cares.
It’s a shame Ben Affleck won the Best Actor prize today and not last week when they could’ve trumpeted it. That movie could have legs though, right? And by legs I mean, after a debut of around $7mil it could get to $30mil or a bit less. LOL. I still reckon Affleck could get himself a Best Supporting Actor nod come February if Focus decides to have a campaign that’s JUST about him. Nothing else. Just him. Not the movie, not Diane Lane, no anything. Just him.
I’m quite surprised that the protector is getting a wide release in the US. It did well in Thailand. I personally hated it, but had to see what the fuss was all about.
“Hollywoodland” is D.O.A. Nobody wants to see movies whose ads are full of “Academy Award Winner” and “Academy Award Nominee”.
I saw “Idlewild” last night — best of the summer releases I’ve seen so far. Universal cleary mishandled the release. Why didn’t it go out through Warner Bros. or New Line? (HBO Films synergy)
As a timely reminder “World Trade Center” is finished — its per-theater average this weekend is under $1,000.
People go to see “Oscar ad” movies all the time, but more often much later in the season.
Idlewild wasn’t mishandled, the film was not going to get great word of mouth, so they didn’t want to throw good money after bad. If Barder, etc. had made a much more commercial movie, Uni would have been happy to promote it. But as it was, more marketing would have simply gotten a bigger opening weekend, and similar large dropoffs down the road.
WTC still made about $70 mill, which for a Stone film is huge. It’s also more than twice as much as United 93 made.
I wonder what (if any) effect the much-hyped “Path to 9/11” will have on Sunday evening box-ofice? BTW: I’m almost sorry there’s so much emphasis on Toronto here (and on other movie sites) this weekend. The ongoing controversy has been fascinatng, and some revelations — particlarly about the likely agendas of the folks behind it — are disturbing.
And no, I’m not trying to plug my own blog. Check out this story in that famously liberal newspaper, The New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bill_sics_legal_eagles_on_abc_nationalnews_philip_recchia______and_jennifer_fermino.htm
And while you’re at it, see how that notoriously Leftie news organization, Fox News, wieghs in:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/08/chris-wallace-slams-abc-on-911-project-i-think-its-slanderous-i-think-its-defamatory-and-i-think-that-abc-and-disney-should-be-held-to-account/
Finally, that noted Commie Bill Bennett waxes critical:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/08/bill-bennett-comes-out-in-opposition-to-the-path-to-911/
Yeah, people do like to see Oscar winners in movies. The difference with Hollywoodland is that (a) the trailer was not compelling, (b) Adrien Brody has never been a box-office draw, and (c) people don’t like Ben Affleck anymore after his long string of awful movies.
Chucky, I would love it if you could ever explain in greater detail what your obsession with this particular form of marketing is.
Maybe Joe knows. Path cost 40 mil and it’s being shown commercial free. Should I be a disgruntled shareholder?
Well, I don’t think you should be too gruntled, that’s for sure. I think I’m going to wait until the thing is released on DVD before I waste that much time watching it.
Maybe I’m just cynical, but all this press and back and forth on Path makes me think it’s all just a great publicity stunt that will unquestionably lead to higher ratings.
Like they say, all publicity is good as long as they spell your name right (which apparently they were not able to do for Madeleine Albright in the film).
The box office returns may be lousy, but they’re still better than the U.S. Open ratings.