Word today in The New York Times – which means that one side of the negotiation wanted it in the NYT – that Universal may be able to sell off the failed genre arm of Focus Features, Rogue Pictures, to Relativity boggles the mind.
How stupid does Ryan Kavanaugh have to be if he is willing to pay a single penny more than the classic
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"]
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
Aww c’mon, Hot Fuzz made more than $23 million. Would have made more with the right marketing.
Other than that, yeah a lot of stinkers.
Shaun of the Dead only made $13 million? I really liked that movie, I thought it had done better than that.
Yeah, those two movies jumped out to me, too. Do you really have to buy Oscars these days? I thought Jet Li’s Fearless was extremely well done, very balanced. Do you think if Hot Fuzz or Fearless had been Fox Searchlight they would’ve blown into the stratosphere? There looks there are like some pretty decent films on that list. Kinda sad they didn’t do better. Are they fairing better in aux releasings? Too many movies suck by strictly chasing after derivative elements thought to guarantee profits. That’s kinda sad. How do original films make money? As copycat as this town is, I can’t believe one distrib would consistently have so much success while most others would face plant their ops into 6 ft below.
I’m not trying to bust on every movie… I like those movies too… but while they were not losers, they were not big overperformers either. Both films made more than enough to be very profitable for their producers before North American release.
And Working Title specialty product would likely be released via Focus in future, in any case.
Geez David, how about looking at the quality of the films? Why is the cost so important to you? Just for SHAUN OF THE DEAD alone that list is priceless.
Because they aren’t buying art, christian… they are making a business deal.
Or were you being facetious?
This thread reminded me to ask:
Why is “Transporter 3” a Lionsgate domestic release instead of Fox (who released the first two)?
Found a bunch of articles touting LG’s acquisition, but couldn’t find any insight into why or how this lucrative franchise slipped through its usual distrib.
Not facetious at all. I don’t care about the deal – I care about the art. (And yes, SOTD is Art!)
Would you rather have the deal…or the art?
Shaun of the Dead blows. And that Block Party thing doesn’t even count as a movie.
The rest of that list is pretty aces, though, even if Hot Fuzz has all that weird Ninth Gate-looking town elders shit THAT WOULD NEVER BE IN AN ACTION MOVIE, EEEEEEEVER.
BALLS OF FURY is probably fucking terrible but MAGGIE Q gives me a BONER.
‘shaun of the dead’ rocks. fuckadoodledoo!
anyone in the mood for some ‘best of’:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEWUjl7Qx6M&feature=related
But Christian, an artist can’t make art unless he has money to live.
…or, however you want to extend this metaphor.
I guess I’m not clear on how Rogue Pictures is a failure. Why aren’t you taking into account the money the movies made overseas?
Going by worldwide gross, only 3 of these movies fall under $20m BO. ‘Hot Fuzz’ took in $80m. ‘Cry Wolf’ made $15m off of $1m. (stats from box office mojo).
I couldn’t find budgets for four of these, but of the ones I could find, only two (The Return and Doomsday) seem to have really tanked.
That would make Rogue a moneymaker, wouldn’t it? Or at least valuable?
“But Christian, an artist can’t make art unless he has money to live.”
Tell that to all my friends who don’t get paid to create!
christian: I’m assuming your friends don’t require millions of dollars to produce their art. š
CMoorhead, I don’t know all the details, but Rogue didn’t get the overseas money on Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead among others – they’re a domestic distributor, primarily.
And I agree, Shaun of the Dead and Chapelle’s Block Party are the winners on that list. Doomsday was trash, but it was highly enjoyable trash – and I’m glad Rogue exists for them.
Since most are screenwriters…yes!
Not wanting to belabor this…
But when a company launches a new division with a specific goal, it is not enough to have some good movies with some marginal profitability.
Rogue and Atomic were both launched to chase the Dimension and Lionsgate models. But as they launched, the success of that specific model narrowed. In addition, studios who own these divisions are not willing to push as far as Lionsgate into NC-17/unrated territory.
The companies needed one Scream or a Spy Kids or a Saw in order to fulfill the corporate idea of a division being needed. And at NBC/U, movies like Hot Fuzz will continue to be made by Working Title for Europe and will get distribution through Focus itself… which is one of the reasons that NBC/U needs to keep Focus open.
The end of Section Eight at WB was the end of WIP. The end of the HBO Movies relationship was the end of Picturehouse. As long as Working Title is as Universal, a division to sell the smaller, more publicity-heavy movies is still important. And that deal last through 2013, folks.
So do you care more about the deal, the biz, the numbers…numbers…numbers…
I mean, what guarantees are there that any film will make money, David? NONE. That’s the high risk nature of movie-making. So if you end up with Art plus Commerce, all is good. And if you end up with Art plus no commerce, you’re still ahead. But nobody knows….blah.
There is no “more.”
My first love is film… quality film.
My interest in business has little to do with quality, since the business rarely has much to do with quality. It may seem cynical, but it’s reality.
You’re right… nobody knows. But some people are right more often than others and some people are more pleasant for the artist to work with and some models simply make more sense and lead to more product and less risk.