An Entry About Me
The Hairspray entry has digressed into a discussion about me…
My fault. I bit.
So let’s take it out of that entry and over here if this requires more discussion.
May 5, 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
Dave, it seems to me that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I’m confused. What’s the issue under discussion in this thread? ‘David Poland, yes or no’?
David,
Would you rather have your readers take everything you say as gospel and just try to one up each other with posts about how much they agree with you?
I for one disagree with a lot of your opinions and think that you are right-on with a lot as well. I also respect the fact that you are willing to mix it up with your readers and defend what you write.
But to complain that commenters on a BLOG make it too much about you seems to miss the point of the purpose of a blog.
I don’t think it’s digressed into a discussion about you at all. It’s digressed into a debate about whether or not Hairspray will be as successful as you claim it will be based on viewing 1/6 of the entire film. If you want it to be about you, then we can make it about you, but we’re merely talking about the film and your response to it.
Wedding Crashers made 200 million dollars and I’m sorry, but I don’t think there is any way possible that a film with a drag queen in the lead will make nearly that amount. It will be lucky to gross sixty million dollars. And just because the studio threw a whole bunch of money at it, that doesn’t mean it will make it back (witness Grindhouse).
Please tell me, Dave, how you came to the conclusion that it will make all that money without even looking at the marketing for the film?
Wedding Crashers made a boatload of money because it was something that moviegoers haven’t had in quite a while… an R-rated comedy for adults. 40YOV also got a nice bounce for being the same, although the film probably would have done better with a little more distance from WC, as the latter was still doing eight figure weekends by the time 40YOV opened.
No matter how great Hairspray might look, comparing this PG musical to an R adult comedy is like comparing apples and pineapples… within the same genus but not at all alike.
David Poland: Yes or no? Hmmmmm.
How about: Maybe.
Wait till you guys see KNOCKED UP….that’s going to be HUUUuuuge. And it’s a great movie to boot. Apatow is en fuego.
Is this topic Dave’s attempt at some child psychology?
child psychology. Larry Birkhead. He the baby daddy so everyone except Jeffmcm likely will be forgetting about Dave shortly!
Unless we could talk about the movie instead of Dave.
I liked the orginal Hairspray so much, and I adore Divine in all of his/her evilness.
I think Dave just wants this entry to be about the whole Dave/bias thing and keep the other one about Hairspray.
Compared to some other threads I’ve seen on the board, I thought that other thread was remarkably on-topic and subdued. I didn’t see any obvious personal attacks, but will grant there may be some subtext and long-term issues that I missed the nuances of.
I certainly wasn’t trying to make it personal. David, you predict one thing, I predict something drastically different. I’m curious to see who ends up right. If it’s not me, I’ll have no problem saying so. I thought Last Action Hero would be a bigger hit than Jurassic Park.
(I still say the former is way underrated)
“I’m confused. What’s the issue under discussion in this thread? ‘David Poland, yes or no’?”
Can I flip a coin before giving my answer? 🙂
LYT, Last Action Hero on the whole is a pretty big mess, but there are bits and pieces that are sheer genius. The Hamlet bit is classic.
You know, this kind of reminds me of when Dave listed Rachel McAdams as one of the most bankable stars or whatever, well above what popular opinion may have placed her at. As he said at the time, yeah, it was a stretch, but it made for an interesting conversation. Is $200 million for Hairspray a stretch – maybe. But it is making for an interesting conversation.
When the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston asked me to pick an overlooked or under-rated film to introduce during a series of such films a few years ago — I have to admit, I picked Last Action Hero. And Eric, you’re right — the Hamlet bit is freakin’ hilarious.
Joe,
That is a genuinely cool choice. A flawed film to be sure, but much more sophisticated than given credit for.
And to think how ‘ahead of the curve’ The Running Man seems now also with all of the reality TV shows being so prevalent.
Thr Running Man was a Stephen King short story was before it was a bad Arnold movie. And the book is much more prophetic on the whole reality show thing. In fact, the movie and book barely share more than a title.
The Wedding Crashers was a total fluke. On the page it wasn’t even funny – it was really awful, actually. But Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson made it one of the funniest movies of the year, that’s the weirdest thing about it to me – how they turned shit into gold. Really, you can boil it down mostly to Vince Vaughn (“I’m going to go ice my balls and spit up blood.”) I don’t see Hairspray even coming close to that. Imagine how many gaggles of young men piled into the Wedding Crashers that will be too embarrassed even to see Hairspray. But, who knows. DP could be right.
no small coincidence that the Hamlet bit is purportedly one of the very few bits left in the film from Shane Black’s original draft of the script. imagine what the original Last Action Hero would have been like.
Petaluma,
I am aware of the pedigree of The Running Man. The Long Walk is another King novella that also deals with similar subject matter.
That said, even the film version of The Running Man, flawed as it is, is a film that I think was a lot more clever than was given credit for at the time.
I watched it again recently and it really did seem very spot on culturally. Dawson is very good in that flick.
Richard Dawson is excellent in Running Man. It’s a fine mid-80s action film.
Ya know, I think I was thinking of “The Long Walk” when I made that post earlier, my bad.
And yeah, Richard Dawson was creepy in “The Running Man”….it wasn’t *that* bad a film.
I think many (most?) people were predisposed to despising Last Action Hero before they saw it because of all the mega-hype. I mean, seriously: Do you remember the reports that there had been negotiations with NASA to have an ad for the movie on the booster rocket for a space shuttle mission?
That actually happened, Joe, except it wasn’t a space shuttle rocket but a stand-alone.
Has the original script for Last Action Hero ever been published anywhere? I’ve heard several times now that it was much better than what ended up on the screen.
P.S. Agree that both the Running Man movie and novella were ahead of their time. The movie was also silly in that Arnold-in-the-80s way, but the story was really sharp. It probably still holds up today even without the added context of today’s “reality” television.
P.P.S. David must be crying right now– unrelated threads are all about David, and David threads are all about everything else.
Jeff: Yikes!
Eric: Well, I could make another snarky comment about David’s ass.
Another thing about The Running Man in the original Stephen King version: it ends (spoilers!) with the hero taking control of a jet and crashing it into the headquarters of the evil television company.
The novella plays a lot closer to what we would see on reality tv now (does anyone else remember the planned Matt Damon/Ben Affleck produced series about hunting someone down, that got sent to the backburner after 9/11?).
As cool as the ending was, I still get grossed out everytime I think about (spoilers!) the part where the main character’s entrails start coming out bit by bit, and he gets them caught. Yech!
It’s not a drag role. He’s a man done up with prosthetics in order to play a woman. It’s the same thing that Eddie Murphy does in his movies.
It’s still drag, prosthetics or not. That includes when Eddie Murphy does it.
LAST ACTION HERO has maybe three or four clever in-jokes about movie cliches, specifically action movies, which is SO CLEVER because it’s an action movie too. Oh lord, how funny…
OK, it’s not AS bad as many claimed it to be at the time, but it’s not a misunderstood gem for god’s sake.
Joe, I’m from Houston and I’ve been reading your reviews since a little kid, I really respect your opinions man, but NOT on this one.
I am very happy that this entry’s comments digressed into a conversation about movies and not me… a much better trajectory.
Hairspray has a long way to go… lots of places to drop the ball. But besides a specific number, my larger thought is that the film offers the possibility of phenomonology because it isn’t some of the things that suggested it would be a car wreck.
Men and boys weren’t running out to see The Devil Wears Prada either. It’s not like I’m suggesting that this film is going to be in the Top 5 for this next summer. But when discussing box office potential, you have to start thinking of markets.
Best case scenario – Take Prada’s number then add younger girls and families that make even mediocre animation into $150 million grossers. Women are an underserved market and kids are a remarkably loyal market. Add in a nostalgia thing and $200 million is far from insane. Hardly guaranteed. But not insane.
I think it should be pointed out that if Hairspray were to gross $200m, that would make it the highest-grossing non-animated musical of all time, beating Grease, Chicago, and The Sound of Music.
It’s also worth pointing out that this is the first musical, other than Moulin Rouge!, to come out in the summer since Annie in 1982.
It’s a rather significant paradigm shift, taking the big Broadway musical out of the Oscar slot post-Chicago.
And again… it’s a family piece.
I am not a fan of adjusted grosses, but according to Mojo’s adjusted grosses, Grease would be a $500 million movie in today’s dollars.
And we all know how well Annie did.
Yes.. 25 years ago.
And Poltergeist did $77 million. Should Lionsgate cancel the next Saw movie?
Dave, you seem to be ignoring the fact that you are predicting this number based on seeing only 1/6 of the movie and without seeing any of the marketing. How can you be so sure of yourself? Don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a bit? That’s the real issue. Besides, I don’t really see anybody in the central part of this country wanting to see a movie about a drag queen. How do you explain how conservatives are gonna go to the theater to see Travolta in drag? That is a huge turn-off for everyone outside the cities. Your head is in the clouds if you think that’s not going to be a factor.
“Should Lionsgate cancel the next Saw movie?”
By all means, yes.
(Yes, I know you’re making a different point.)
Noah, what you’re forgetting is that people are fine with drag in comedies, a la Norbit. It’s not the same thing as the stereotype of flamingly aggressive drag queens in big cities undermining traditional values.
My mistake, DP, I was under the impression that Annie was a huge bomb in 1982 but I see now that it grossed $57m, which in today’s dollars would be what, twice that or more?
My conclusion would be that Hairspray can be a hit, but I think its ceiling would be $150m tops.
Well Noah, seems you are arguing with me with even less information.
Getting into the drag issue… there is a difference between this drag and downtown drag.
It’s cetainly not a movie about a drag queen. Besides the fact that Edna is not the center of the film, it’s not played as a drag queen.
Again… I was against the Travolta hire. But it looks like it he got it right.
And I am not “so sure of myself.” I didn’t write a blood oath. I wrote about a movie that signalled “disaster” in every way and has now turned out to be something else altogether. Trailer plays like gangbusters. Footage plays like gangbusters. The one test screening was through the roof.
And all of that may mean nothing.
But while I don’t think it has as nearly as wide a commercial reach, it feels a little like Pirates 1, which everyone assumed was going to be a crappy Disney ride rip-off at about this time that spring. It was also late in the season (post July 4) and surrounded by T3 and Bad Boys 2. And voila… as soon as the trailer hit, it became clear that it was going to be something else.
Yes, I feel good about where this thing is heading. The first number they showed, which opens the show, was a revelation tonally. And now, New Line has to make it happen.
And to throw more gas on the fire… if the 20 minutes of Dreamgirls turned you on and then the movie dissapointed, then you are a moron who doesn’t know what they like. Either you were played by the 20 minutes or you were playing yourself when you saw the film. That 20 minutes was an accurate read of the film.
20 minutes isn’t inconsequential. These are not fast-cut packages like the Gangs of NY Cannes piece from years ago, after which you had no idea how the film would play. And I have the advantage of having seen the show (c/o New Line in L.A. a couple of years ago), so I can create context for those numbers. It’s not like Travolta’s performance is going to get weirder or Nikki Blonsky is going to grow 3 inches or we won’t smile when we see Walken or Pfeiffer. Yes, it is possible that it doesn’t work as a whole. But if a film can deliver 4 or 5 great memorable moments for its target audience, that can drive it to very big numbers. And I saw 2 (or so) of them in this 20 minutes.
And if I see the movie and it isn’t as good… that will be a drag indeed.
Okay, now you’re comparing the film to Pirates of the Caribbean. But I will offer another comparison.
The Producers.
Much more popular show, with bigger stars in the movie (Ferrell, Uma, Broderick, Lane) and great numbers. Whether or not the movie was a good one ultimately doesn’t matter because people wouldn’t even go to the theater to see it. And that one didn’t have Travolta in drag.
You’ve seen 20 minutes, maybe it’s a great movie (I doubt it, but hey so did you) but how are they going to get people into the theater to see it? Being successful on a stage does not necessarily equate to being successful on screen, especially when people can just rent the original movie instead of going to see the new one.
“No small coincidence that the Hamlet bit is purportedly one of the very few bits left in the film from Shane Black’s original draft of the script. imagine what the original Last Action Hero would have been like.”
Imagine what the original Last Action Hero would have been like if Zak Penn and Adam Leff’s original screenplay had been made.
On Last Action Hero,
Ironically, I think it had a similar problem to the failure of GH. It was not what the marketing promised.
It takes a long time for Arnold to become prominant in the pic and is too dark for pure comedy but too goofy for pure action.
On Hairspray,
I do not think this has a great crossover appeal, but I think the Travolta drag thing will not be problem in any real sense. Men in drag is pretty much a time honoured comedy tradition that has been done in many cultures.
I think it will depend how its marketed. If its played for big, goofy Travolta in goofy dress and fatsuit laughs…no problem.
If people suspect even a hint of soci-political subtext…yeah it could hurt. The studio should not let John Waters anywhere near the interviews for this flick. If reviewers start talking about ‘gender bending’ and ‘challenging our assumptions’ you can forget the family crowd.
Also do not underestimate the appeal of Michelle Pfeiffer. She is going to give this thing a touch of class that will help.
Personally, I have about as much interest in this as Speed Racer.
Noah – thanks again for taking something I went out of my way to make sure was in context out of context.
But beyond that, are you saying that only context that agrees with your position is relevant?
I can make all the arguments against Hairspray succeeding. I’ve made them in the last year. Rent is even more of a problem example that The Producers, as the base for the show is not just a fan base, but a base of obsessives.
But you keep avoiding the main way they get people in… they sell it to people (women, kids) who are not you (or me, for that matter).
The good news, however, is that you sound just like a young studio exec. Make sure to get that gold tooth and she sashay out of Johnny Depp’s performance! Who’s going to see a drama about Will Smith being homeless? Another fucking penguin movie?
Really, I am not discounting all of your concerns. And I could end up being dead wrong about this film succeeding. But if that’s as far as you think, we’ll never watch anything but mayonnaise.
Dont underestimate Travolta’s appeal. WILD HOGS made a fortun. And seeing him prance around as a fat woman has some appeal for people.
I love how you take this dig at me, like I’m some idiot because I have a different opinion than you. Calling me a young studio exec, I mean come on. I wouldn’t make this movie probably, but I probably wouldn’t make any movie that made money if I was a studio exec because my tastes seem to run counter to what the majority of people in this country like to go see.
And I think people just plain old don’t want to see Hairspray as much as you seem to think they will want to. You said it will make Wedding Crashers money, which is 200 million dollars. I think it won’t get anywhere close to that. Hell, I’ll even make you a bet that it won’t make more than sixty million bucks. If I’m right, I’ll take over The Hot Button for a day.
But, see, we’re having an argument about a movie and it really doesn’t have anything to do with how I feel about you, but you keep making judgments about me and making sarcastic digs. We’re having a disagreement and I would appreciate it if you could argue your point more respectfully and not so condescendingly.
I’m making this one point about this one movie which I just don’t see as being a huge hit and you tell me that if I were in charge, we’d watch nothing but mayonnaise. Great. So does that mean if you were in charge, we’d watch nothing but musicals?
Dave, I respectfully disagree with you. Don’t be an asshole about it just because my opinion differs from yours.
Let me know about that bet. If I lose, I don’t know, I’ll give you some money or something.
Also, by the way do you really think Hairspray is going to rake in the kids and women when the new Harry Potter opens the previous week and License to Wed will still be in theaters?
“Trailer plays like gangbusters.”
Am I mistaken, or is there no trailer yet?
>>>I am not a fan of adjusted grosses….
Why if I may ask? Just curious.
Boy, you really don’t want to be a studio exec, Noah.
The dig came from your insistence that John Travolta in drag was a big Middle America issue when you haven’t even seen a piece of the performance. That seems awfully narrow to me… not for you to bring it up… but to insist.
Sorry if it tweaked you. I’m not sure I agree that I did all that to you, but I guess you might be a little more empathic to how I feel about what you have written.
And as far as adjusted grosses… they tell us something VERY narrow. They are basically hocus pocus. You really can’t compare Gone With The Wind and Pirates of the Caribbean because the industry is completely different in all kinds of ways, not just inflation and ticket price.
I believe it’s fine to deal with adjusted gross to support a positive argument for an older film. But it’s really like sports stats. Baseball is different in many ways now, from how talent is gathered and developed to the layers of pitching to the stadiums, etc. But a home run is a home run and a strike out is a strike out. And trying to determine whether Ted Williams could hit .400 now is pretty much impossible.
Home video as a mainstream thing is only 25 years old. DVD is less than 10 years old. Cable networks have expanded programming exponentially in the last fifteen years. Foreign countries are being screened to increase business as never before. Satellites… etc, etc, etc.
So for me, comparing 15 years ago to today at the box office is a little specious, except in very specific, careful ways. And I think that the adjusted gross thing is just spread a bit too thick when people throw it out there.
We can have this argument forever. I believe it won’t be a big hit, you believe it will be. Neither of us know how they will market the film.
You know, Dave, you started this thread because you felt that somehow disagreeing with your take on Hairspray that people were attacking you. But, I for one was not attacking you, I was arguing with your assessment having seen only fifteen minutes of the film. Maybe you’ll be vindicated, maybe you won’t be. Part of the fun in going to the movies is arguing about them before we see them, after we’ve seen them. And, well, you kind of take all the fun out of it when you condescend to people and assume that they just don’t know as much as you. We all have access to the same stats.
The truth of the matter is that I have a million reasons to think that Hairspray won’t be successful, but you will continue to believe that it will be and that’s fine. But when you take up a position that is as incendiary as the one you’ve chosen, you should be prepared to answer the critiques.
I would think that comparing adjusted grosses is at least more accurate than _not_ comparing adjusted grosses and suggesting that inflation never happened.
On Hairspray in the Summer: I think that could help it. It won’t have the air of being prestigious and Oscar-baiting, and will be more of a fun moviegoing experience. And no matter what you say, Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick are not box office draws, Will Ferrell barely seemed to be mentioned in the advertising and Uma Thurman is in that weird space where she’s seen more as a “Oh, well Uma’s in it” instead of “omg Uma Thurman has a new movie!!”
On the “drag” aspect: “conservative” or whatever you wanna call them audiences don’t seem to care that much as long as it’s a) not actually meant to be a man wearing womens clothing and b) done for comedic effect (in their eyes, anyway).
On John Travolta: I legitimately think there is interest in seeing Travolta in a musical again. Of course, how much of that interest is still there when they know he’s dressed as a woman is yet to be determined. They totally should have tried to get Olivia Newton John for a role of some sort. Now that would’ve been marketing gold.
On Inflation: I’m of two minds. On one hand I think it’s important to recognise that Titanic, LOTR and Spiderman aren’t actually the most successful movies ever in those terms, it is true what Dave says. There’s so much more difference these days. A movie making $400mil these days is very significant considering there’s alternate viewing possibilities. Yada yada yada. Of course, we still talk about how certain movies were the most expensive ever made when at the time they cost, like, $20mil or something.
Don’t forget that Travolta will get to pander to all them housewives during appearances on Oprah and The View…that’s gonna help the film to $60 million easily. I still don’t think HAIRSPRAY will be a huge hit though.
Heaven’s Gate cost $40 million in 1979.
One From The Heart cost under $30 million in 1982.
Both shut down studios.
25 years later, low end studio comedies cost as much or more than either.
Different world.
And I love that a $150 million gross for Travolta and Tim Allen in chaps is already forgotten and the demo that took Night At The Crappy Museum to $250 million is irrelevant.
Who in this blog cared about either of those films?
Travolta has worked Oprah, etc, before and films have failed. I’m telling you, the key to this thing is the whole film, especially Blonsky, not just John in a dress. He alone is the snake on the plane. Gotta sell the movie, not the one most obvious gimmick. Or $50 million is all they will see. And it seems to me that New Line gets that loud and clear.
…which is why adjusted figures should be used.
In context, yes, J-Mc.
But there are very few contexts that matter for the use of adjusted grosses.
No movie will sell 250 million tickets for theater viewing again. But there will be plenty of movies (too many) that are seen by more people than have seen Gone With The Wind. Apples and Oranges.
My only point is that it’s a less distorted to use adjusted grosses than it is to tell people that Titanic and Return of the King are the two most popular movies of all time. There are more contexts in which this is appropriate than the other way around.