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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
Re – Long-ass Star Trek rant (from a different thread, but on the same subject)
I have no idea if it
Has no one asked where the money’s going? I mean, it’s not like they’re giving out a big payday to Shatner and Nimoy; this is a B and C-list cast. And TREK was never about the visual effects, so they can’t be so stupid as to blow it all on that. So again, tell me: where’s the money going?
I’m guessing visual effects and expensive action set pieces in an effort to turn what was always a modest character and story-based franchise into an action tentpole franchise-starter.
I think it’s probably going to suck.
‘this is a b and c-list cast’…
‘it’s probably going to suck’…
bite your tongues, cadavra and jeff! karl urban plays ‘mccoy’ in the new star trek babies and he’s ‘grade A prime cut’ all the way, able to save would-be lame movies in a single bound! š
Other than Urban and Pegg, that cast represents some major total douche.
Well, in MI3 Abrams showed that he had good taste in actors (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Maggie Q, Crudup, Fishburne) but then Cloverfield showed that he likes to cast good-looking non-talents, so I look forward to Pegg, Urban, and Sylar from Heroes but the guy playing Kirk is hopefully getting better career advice than Brandon Routh.
While I agree that Paramount is spending way too much money on this thing and that J.J. Abrams is really quite overrated (I love Lost, but he’s basically a one-trick pony to me like Chris Carter was), I think some of you are missing the obvious on the grosses for this thing – adjusted for inflation, First Contact and Generations are easy blockbusters.
I know, I know, we all glaze our eyes over when talking about “inflation,” but, let’s look at recent history, here, with other franchise re-boots – Die Hard 4 did about $20 million more than any other previous entry, the most recent Bond have been topping $150 million while the ones from ’80’s were barely breaking $50 million, Indiana Jones did about $70 million more than the first one, Superman Returns was the only Superman film to gross $200 millino domestically – my point is that if marketed right, there’s no reason these films can’t gross signicantly more than their long-gone predecessors by virtue of simple economics.
If Par plays their cards right and just revs up the fanboys who remember ‘Khan, there’s no reason they can’t break $150 million – it’s not really that complicated, just a mirage created by inflation. When this thing has the “biggest Trek opening ever,” it really won’t be as big of a deal as everybody will think.
Does that mean Paramount should have spent $150 million? Probably not – this is not a $300 million film no matter how you slice it. But really, how many summers in a row can we underestimate this studio? Transformers? Iron Man?
Star Trek will probably just make enough money to “rejuvinate” the franchise and be considered a hit, nothing more.
Does this (especially DP’s astute writing) all strike you as some kind of….chickens coming home to roost? The big movie studio machine is really…not needed in this brave new world and Spielberg definitely doesn’t need it to keep on keeping on. It reminds me of the musicians making their own way by self releasing stuff.
Movie theaters and studios are in a tough spot…something has to give. This seems like a nice first ante.
Obviously, Cloverfield was cast with unknowns, the better to sell its premise. I still think it was probably the right choice for that project, but, sure, a better class of unknowns couldn’t have hurt.
As for Trek, Chris Pine was probably the best thing in the unfortunate Smokin’ Aces, for what that’s worth. Very different role of course, but a huge step up from Just My Luck. I’ll hold out hope that he can deliver as Kirk. Not a lot of options there — since Shatner owns the role, you can’t go with a big name (or probably even find one who’d touch it).
I’m sure Paramount will try to sell the film both ways — as the reboot of a beloved franchise and as the first in a potential new sci-fi action tentpole series (no familiarity with the original necessary). As others have noted, Iron Man and Transformers certainly went way beyond their pre-sold fan bases.
I think Geoff’s got a good point- $150 million is the new $75 million. Get the old fans jazzed up, have a few Iron Manish style trailers, and you’re looking at close to $300 million domestic.
In fact, I’m calling $200 million right now.
Or it could be the new speed racer.
Can’t believe no one else thought to do this…
Folks, adjusted for inflation WRATH OF KHAN did $190M and ST: VOYAGE HOME did $209M. So let’s drop the “none have done more than $109M” literalist crap right there.
Second, a reboot (which you better believe Par will trumpet on MTV so often that you will think that Pine, Quinto and Urban are in some hot new band) with a new, young cast that will be on every talk show next spring is going to open this up to the general public unlike any other Trek film. Although now Paramount would be benefiting from a Harry Potter-less Christmas season had they left it in its original December slot, the new May opening is likely to see a first weekend box office larger than most of the other films grossed domestic.
Unless it gets terrible buzz as a stinker, this thing is going to do $200M+ domestic easily. I would say $250M+, but WOLVERINE opens the week before so the general fan-boy base will be diluted.
PS – yancyskancy, Matt Damon is on record saying if they want to make Kirk older in the future, he’s up for the role.
And Pine is terrific in BOTTLE SHOCK as well.
To clarify: when I said it was a B and C cast, I was not referring to their talent, nor, for that matter, their marquee appeal. I was pointing out that none of these actors command large salaries, making me wonder why the film was costing so much.
200 – 250 million??? No chance.
These new actors are NOT the draws. Who cares about them? Very few people have heard of them. Certainly not the casual Trek viewer (if there even is such a thing). The BRAND is the draw. But the brand is inexorably linked to the original cast. Ergo problem.
You will not find a bigger trekkie than me — trust me on that. But I am 35 (and I think that’s just about the target demo for any new Star Trek movie, as I was in my early teens when Khan and the rest came out; you know of any 21 year old die-hard Trek fans??). How many fans my age care about Trek without the original cast? That’s the question. I know I don’t.
I guess I’ll see it, but certainly not because of JJ (and yes, one trick pony fits the bill perfectly). I’ll see it just like I’ve seen all of them — the score, the swishing sound of the doors. But hoping for 200 million worth of eyeballs, based on an aging franchise whose target demo is probably my age? Good luck.
I think the Trek franchise will crash and burn. Both the original cast and next generation had years of goodwill built up through the television series. This one is going in cold and I don’t see it catching a whole new young audience that it would need to be successful.
That said the Trek 150 is sure a better investment than the Button 150. I can’t wait to see it but it will have to make Pursuit of Happyness money to cover that budget which is unlikely given the offbeat story matter and the fact that Pitt is not a box office draw in dramas.