May 19, 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
Why Sony Classics can still has its own unique set of goals and expectations? I think it is because while many Dependents try to make more lower-budgeted mainstream movies, Sony already has Screen Gems to make lower-budgeted mainstream movies; so Sony Classics has better freedom to make/release smaller arthouse/foreign-language movies…..
know it all, i’m not sure what i’d do without you
Both Lesher and Rothman came to speak at my school for the Ivy Film Festival this April. I didn’t know much about them then, and it’s interesting to read your comparison of them.
According to Anne, “Son of Rambow” is actually profitable for Paramount.
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/06/paramount-vanta.html
yeah. people tell her a lot of things.
some are true.
and marychan, the goals for sony classics is different than any of the other companies and how barker & bernard came to the party is different. they have held their water, with a few recent exceptions, satisfied with profitability year in and year out, with fewer attempts at home runs. by columbia standards, their revenue profile is a speck… but they satisfy a taste for quality and don’t lose money (thanks to the lack of other dependents competing in much of their playing field allowing them to acquire many titles that are really just small-but-solid-profit DVD titles ahead of some of the true indies because of the big company behind them). screen gems is not in any way the same business or relevant.
The clearout means Par Vantage becomes a niche imprint just like New Line or United Artists.
As for distribution? Vantage piggybacked on regular Par, which helped get even the duds like “Son of Rambow” into megaplexes. Compare that to how SPC handled “The Counterfeiters”.
The Counterfeiters has outgrossed Son of Rambow despite being on fewer screens at that point in its run. Rambow’s run isn’t finished yet but SPC’s slower rollout strategy contained costs and probably maximized profits. However the Counterfeiters has actually expanded wider than Rambow with 170 theaters against a total of 152 for Rambow So I am not sure how this is a success for Vantage.
SPC has its own distribution apart from Columbia/Screen Gems/TriStar. That may be great if you deal with small artsy-fartsy theaters but not if you want your movies in megaplexes.
“The Counterfeiters” has commercial hooks galore — WWII, Nazis, concentration camp. Would have grossed more had SPC not been so obstinate on where the film would play.
Grosses, profits and theater counts have nothing to do with it.
Even though The Counterfeiters was from the director of “The Academy Award-Winning The Counterfeiters”?