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
The marketing was great. A funny spot on the Super Bowl plus the great Old Spice ads (when was the last time an actor in character shilled a specific product like this) and ubiquitous billboards and TV spots.
Perhaps 70s nostalgia is dead.
It’s time for Will Ferrell to make a different kind of movie. Even Adam Sandler was willing to try different things. Can’t blame on the market department though. It’s even in Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. And yes, I do read that magazine.
Yeah, I tend to agree with Wrecktum. The marketing campaign for “Semi-Pro” was aces (and don’t forget Will’s recent campus tour).
I have no idea what went wrong there–and the reviews weren’t “that” bad; not that reviews even matter anymore. Hopefully Will’s step-brother pic with John C. Reilly delivers the goods this summer; although after “Walk Hard,” Reilly may be more of a liability than a help.
Surprisingly decent opening for “Boleyn Girl” (I’m sure that Sony is pleased), and an expected “bomb’s away!” for “Penelope.”
Ghastly limited bow for “City of Men”! I guess all of the “City of God” fans just decided to stay home and watch their “God” dvds one more time.
And Roadside Attractions had one of their rare marketing boo-boos with “Bonneville.” Personally I’m kind of surprised that it didn’t go straight to Showtime after the dismal 2006 Toronto Film Festival premiere. Despite a classy cast (Lange, Allen, Bates), “Bonneville” is a Grade-A lemon.
certain sports movies are just cursed. Can anyone say Celtic Pride? Another one is racecar movies. Semi Pro will do 40-50 domestic and ok #’s on DVD, so not a major loss.
A theatrical bow for City of Men may have been anti-climactic. City of Men has already aired on cable. It was basically a tv show and I think they’ve somehow made a movie out of it.
martin- racecar movies are cursed? if i remember correctly, there was a huge hit for a racecar movie just recently, and it too starred will farrel…
Great skit on SNL on “The Other Boleyn Sisters.”
bibby, true i’m an idiot. If I was to try to stretch that, basketball comedies and racecar dramas – risky investments.
One also has to think the R-Rating cut off at least 5-10 mill from SemiPro. Some of that $ went to others in the top-10.
“It’s time for Will Ferrell to make a different kind of movie. Even Adam Sandler was willing to try different things.”
But Ferrell’s already been diverging as much as Sandler. Elf, Melinda and Melinda, Winter Passing and Stranger Than Fiction aren’t part of his typical output anymore than Reign O’er Me and Spanglish were part of Sandler’s. And other than Elf, Ferrell’s “alternative” movies have fared just about as poorly as Sandler’s too. Trying different things doesn’t add up to a whole hell of a lot better than the usual thing in these cases.
I actually enjoyed Farrell in Semi Pro. He is a guy who will do anything he can on screen to get a laugh. I was intrigued by that kind of attitude and keep wondering what he is going to do next (in Semi-Pro).
“Perhaps 70s nostalgia is dead.”
It’s all about the ’80s now. Haven’t you seen the fleuro? Or maybe it’s just Australia?
Something about the non-success of Semi-Pro makes me happy though. Sort of shows that people of a certain demographic won’t just see anything with those people in it.
^^^ yeah, the demo is teenagers who aren’t old enough to see R-rated comedies, hence the low turn out.
I think blaming the “R” rating is a tad disingenuous.
“R” ratings didn’t significantly hamper any of the Apatow hits (“Superbad,” “30-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up”), or Ferrell’s “Old School” for that matter. And let’s not forget the previously lucrative “American Pie” franchise either.
Let’s hope that the movie’s failure to connect doesn’t mean the neutering of a rash of future comedies to get with the “PG-13” program.
Is it true that “Sex and the City” is choosing to abandon its let-it-all-hang-out HBO roots so they don’t “alienate” fans who discovered the expurgated version of the show in syndication? Now that would be a tragedy.
that’s… ridiculous.
I totally agree, Kam.
But I read somewhere that the producers of the “Sex” movie were bending over backwards to clean things up lest any johnny-come-lately fans–the ones who didn’t discover the series until the PG version currently running in syndication–take offense at the HBO version’s graphic sex talk and occasional nudity.
I know you can’t judge based on trailers since they have to be pretty tame, but as stupid as that decision about SATC sounds, I wouldn’t be shocked based on the new trailer, which played in front of both Semi-Pro and Boleyn when I saw them on Friday. It’s painted to pretty much resemble any given romantic comedy, only with characters people already know. In keeping with the modern Hollywood rom-com, there are barely any jokes — it’s actually a very strange trailer, the way it cuts to sort of vaguely halfway sort of amusing dialogue as if it’s full of punchlines; to anyone interested in comedy, it makes the movie look even less funny than the show. And there’s hardly a hint of sex; the most risque quasi-joke is about… unshaven legs.
Not that I have any particular reverance for Sex and the City, which I’ve always considered pretty lousy and not much better than a mediocre Hollywood rom-com anyway. And not that it seemed to bother the ladies in the audience who sounded quite pleased (a few even clapped at the end, especially at Boleyn).
I don’t know if this counts as SPOILER since it’s speculation based on the trailer, but if that might bother you (and you care that much about the SATC movie), stay away: in the trailer, it’s clear that Carrie’s wedding to Chris Noth gets called off or halted or something. Based on the stupid rest-of-trailer, I figured it would just be for lame romantic-comedy reasons and the movie would be about these characters splitting up and reuniting one more damn time. But my girlfriend said she read rumors online that the Mr. Big character might die in the movie. If this was actually the case, I’d at least shore up respect for the filmmakers, as I could swallow the shallow single-gal ruminations about life a little easier if it’s not just like “aw, my fiancee and I have irreconciliable rich-people differences. Identify with me!”
IMO the marketing for Semi-Pro was terrible. It looked stale, like Ferrell made it five years ago and it got delayed until now. Nothing in any of the TV spots made me want to see it. I think we have seen that R-rated comedies can do well with good marketing.
“A funny spot on the Super Bowl plus the great Old Spice ads (when was the last time an actor in character shilled a specific product like this)”
I thought Bruce Campbell’s OS spot was funnier. Really tho, if you feed so much of Ferrell to the audience via incessant ads, people feel like they saw it already. Which they have.
My problem with the ad campaign was they didn’t really show ANYTHING from the movie. They showed Will in a basketball outfit selling stuff, implying that Will had a movie coming that involved basketball, but for ads that solely centered on the movie, I saw one TV ad and zero trailers (Then again, I went to a lot of movies that probably wouldn’t have a Semi-Pro trailer attached to it the past two months). This implied to me they were a little sheepish at actually showing the MOVIE. Just, “Look at me! I’m doing funny Will Ferrell things! Come watch me do Will Ferrell things in Semi-Pro, where I have a FRO! Dude, that, like, rhymes…..”
Most people I talked to who’d be interested in this movie are waiting for DVD. It’ll make money there, I’m guessing. that they didn’t make it seem like a “YOU MUST SEE THIS RIGHT NOW!” movie is my theory.
Both Boleyn girls? More like Boneyr.
Sex in the City is the worst thing to happen to women and gender in the last thirty years…
And Natalie Portman is one of my favorite actresses, but man does she make some bad choices.
Is there any other actress as/more beautiful and genuinely talented whose movies open to so little?
(Star Wars doesn’t count. And V’s opening could be argued as much to the graphic novel and Wachowski factor)
Who the fuck at CAA is advising this girl? Or do they just let her call all her own shots? I know she’s got her own production company now, so I don’t know.
(On the other hand, I find Scarlett Jo really grating. I was flipping through cable last night and came across the Black Dhalia. Haven’t seen it, but there was some scene between her and Hartnett that was laughingly bad. And I thought, this is why movies are going downhill. Hollywood thinks these two people are stars. They’re not. It was like watching a bad scene from an acting class..)
thx, why is ‘sex and the city’ the worst thing to happen to women and gender in the last 30 years?
i saw an interview with oliver stone a while ago in which he said virtually the same thing, but he didn’t explain why he felt that way, so i’m asking you. i don’t get it.
i assume you are a bloke like everyone else who comments here; never has a blog been more sorely in need of females, i think i may be the only one and i rarely comment
leahnz, the argument that THX wants to make has been going on for years and there is no possible way to get them to understand that Sex and the City is nothing more than a fantasy.
The show being a fantasy is, I believe, part of the argument against it.
I actually am a fan of the TV show, but if you don’t think Sex and the City has affected women in a negative way, then I suggest you go to a trendy club in New York or LA and take a look around. The “fantasy” has resulted in many women believing that to be truly happy they need a sexy guy and a Balenciaga handbag. All you have to do is turn on My Super Sweet 16 and witness them drinking faux-cosmos to be more like their heroes.
The interesting thing about the show (spoilers for the TV show) is that it preached for its entire run that all a girl needs is her friends (and shoes) and doesn’t need a man to prove her worth. In the end, they all wind up with rich men. Charlotte has the high-powered attorney, Miranda gets the bar owner, Samantha gets the movie star and Carrie gets the tycoon. Wouldn’t a real sign of empowerment have them end the show the way they started, single?
SEX AND THE CITY is an embarassment to women. Of course it’s a fantasy. But of the shallowest kind. Poor Carrie and her incessant whining, “Pay attention to ME!” And those fortune-cookie insights of hers! Enough to pay for all those shoes.
They inspire more narcissism and a materialistic pov that only contributes to women being more dissatisfied with their lives. As a man, who would want to date any of these self-absorbed bores? And if it was about men, I’d say the same thing.
9/11 showed the stark contrast of the women and the reality. Anyway.
On the R vs PG-13 thing… it really depends on what audience you are looking to get. If you think that teens and older is what you’ll get, go for that R. (this is a broad overstatement, but…) If you want kids to come to a silly film, go PG-13 or PG.
I think the audience for Blades of Glory, for instance, amongst under 15s, is underestimated. Big, funny images and body jokes draw kids. And Ferrell is naughty enough, but generally doesn’t go far enough to send parents running for the doors, to get the 10-14 crowd… which will attend muliple times.
New Line sold “silly,” but also kind of dark and gritty…. not unlike the Sony sell on Dewey Cox. You need a lot more people getting hit in the balls with basketballs to make a movie like this open at PG-13. And with an R, what adult needs to see it?
oh brother, did any of you actually watch the show? lighten up, men…just further proof you don’t have a clue about we who comprise more than half of the population of the planet.
christian, that’s bullshit. if the show were about men, you’d think it was comedy about a group of friends with a satirical edge and shouldn’t be taken too seriously, but because it’s about women is has to be ’empowering’ and ‘realistic’ or it’s a damaging ’embarassment’ to women… pahleeze!
it’s funny, for fucks sake! women watch it to have a laugh at themselves firt and foremost, we relate to the trials and tribulations of a group of friends, and occasionally there are issues that we can relate to regarding friendship, sex or relationships depicted in a humourous way.
and noah, miranda as a lawyer far out-earned her bartender hubby, and samantha stayed with the actor because he was a sweetie pie and supported her through cancer, he wasn’t rich in the slightest. that argument is just silly.
so men aren’t looking for sexy women and don’t want a nice car? i smell hypocracy and double-standards…
Leahnz, you completely missed my point. It wasn’t about the fact that Miranda or Samantha were wealthier than their counterparts, but they still wound up with guys who were good looking and had flashy jobs. Smith wasn’t rich? He was the star of a Gus Van Sant movie and a big-budget viking movie by the end of the show. If it’s not important, then why didn’t any of the girls end up with a guy who was just a waiter or even just an accountant? Oh yeah, it’s because waiters are “poor” and accountants are “boring”.
The thrust of the show from the get-go was that it was four single women who were happy being single because they had each other. By the end of the show, they drift away from each other to be with their sexy, rich boyfriends. Sure, it’s a great fantasy, but what is the implication there? The show started out as something empowering and becomes about the subjugation of women.
Besides, Miranda is the only tolerable women on that show. Carrie is probably the worst “friend” I’ve ever seen, never missing a chance to interrupt her friends problems to discuss her own.
There are plenty of male-fantasy-fulfillment shows that are nauseating as well.
i didn’t miss your point noah, or anyone elses, i just your arguments are full of holes.
calling miranda’s short, bespectacled steve and charlotte’s bald, chubby hubby good-looking, sexy guys is a real stretch, they’re likable and charming but not spunky. and a novice actor with two movies roles is not rich by any means, nor is your average bar owner. how many successful women past their twenties in real life end up with waiters? come on. (i don’t know how anyone ends up with an accountant, but that’s another story)and this depiction is harmful to women? really?
who knew sex and the city could bring out so much hostility and insecurity in men, go figure
Wow, Steve has glasses and is the same height as Miranda…what a downgrade! Harry is loaded, so it seems to be saying that it’s okay to marry an ugly guy as long as he’s got lots of money. It’s strange that I’m a man complaining about how short-sighted this series is and how I think it is making women seem materialistic and you’re a woman (I’m assuming) who seems to be saying “who gives a shit? It’s fun!” Sure, it’s fun, that’s why I watch it.
I don’t think I’m being hostile or insecure, merely pointing out that I wish the show was MORE empowering to single women instead of telling them that they need a pair of Manolos and a rich businessman to be happy.
Leahnz, are you a mother?
i am indeed, i have a nine year old son, and a sense of humour, thank goodness.
noah, i don’t think you were being particularly hostile or insecure, that was more in regards to some of the other comments. may i ask, why does any material created primarily for women have to be ’empowering’? does stuff written for men (which is pretty much everything) have to be empowering? hardly! a double standard.
we girls like to have a laugh, to laugh at ourselves, and if you guys don’t get that that is the what the show is about, then i’m afraid then perhaps it’s you who is missing the point…
carrie’s ridiculous emelda-marcos-like shoe fetish, miranda’s delicious cynisism, samantha’s nymphomania, it’s called taking the mickey! it’s funny! boys obviously don’t get it. and noah, only one of the four marries a wealthy man (lawyer, not businessman), so how can that be the message of the show…. ?
Leahnz, first of all: I like the show, I’ve watched every episode and it does its job of being entertaining. Not every show has to be empowering, but this show purports to be in its first season. It sells itself initially as a movie about four single women who are fine with being single; in the end they all end up married or in long-term relationships. So, it takes these four independent women and makes them all dependent on wealthy men.
Big was a businessman not a lawyer and had his own vineyard, Harry had his own beach house in Bridgehampton so he’s pretty damn wealthy, Smith Jared is an actor who is in major motion pictures and I’d say he earns more money doing that than most people earn, and Steve owns his own bar in SOHO which is the type of glamorous business venture that most people don’t have.
The problem with the show is that not enough women see it the way you do, as something to laugh at. A lot of women in New York City saw that show as an ideal, “I want to own Manolos and Jimmy Choos and sleep around while drinking cosmos.” If you make it to NYC, I’ll take you to Beatrice Inn one night and you can see it for yourself.
Noah watches every episode of this weak shit?
What a pussy.
noah, i don’t think the women ended up ‘dependant’ on the men (i was talking about harry being the lawer, not big), i think that’s a stretch, and let’s face it, most women, like most men i think, are ultimately looking for someone to share their lives with; it’s a lonely, brutal world out there and the need to breed, for love and companionship, is a powerful one.
i do see your point, though i think women have been drinking in bars and sleeping around and buying shoes and bags long before ‘sex and the city’ came on. girls are perhaps not as saintly as men would like to believe, and the show sort of shined a spotlight on that, exaggerated it, poked fun at it. if young women are actually emulating the show as their cultural ideal, they’ll grow out of it, it takes a while to find yourself. i guess that’s a testament to the power of television.
i haven’t been to nyc since i was 10 years old, my mother and aunt drove my cousin and i across the country from LA to climb the statue of liberty. i guess it’s safe to assume things have changed since then…
That’s not even close to my problems with that show.
Leahnz, you sound like a die hard fan who is not going to realize how that show ruined women…
You can’t climb up the Statue of Liberty anymore.
aw, that’s a bummer about the statue of liberty, jeff, that was one hell of a lot of stairs, i clearly remember the view. my great-grandparents defected from russia to the US at the beginning of the revolution and came through ellis island, so my mother wanted us to see it for ourselves. on another ‘road trip’ we followed the ‘trail of tears’ and visited the memorial for the massacre at wounded knee, which was really sad; my other great-gran was oglala sioux and apparently had tribal rellies at ‘the knee’.
thx, i’m not a die-hard fan of ‘sex and the city’ at all, i just think ‘that show’ is amusing, not the downfall of womanhood. i wasn’t even aware that women were ruined, do tell…
yes Noah…my problem with Sex and the City…third hand really since I could not get through an episode it’s so predictable like a Cosmo quiz…is that it makes women and men both seem awfully stupid somehow. A far SUPERIOR coverage of a similar subject is How to Marry a Millionaire, which I just love, since it shows women, and men deep down really should not or do not care about the flash on either side (looks…women; men…money) and they all ended up happy anyway in Unexpected ways. Much more intelligent exploration of the same subject and it was fuckin’ 50 years ago.
It didn’t “ruin” women THX, it’s just not progress, is it.
SO I think S&TC ended in a silly way.
For myself, instead of a CEO I’d gladly take Javier B and a couple bottles of Mogen David fortified wine (ripple) in a Motel 6 for a week. No calls.
Or maybe the women in S&tC were – this is shocking – HAPPY at the end of the series. They were happy (sometimes) when they were single and happy (sometimes) when they were together. It’d be silly if these characters, who we had seen grow together and grow with the partners they ended up with, decided to remain single because that’s what made them so lovable in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if they’re happy, what matters is how they got that way, and if it’s a realistic expectation for other people to follow or not.