By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Ashton Kutcher’s back end … (rumor)

Posted Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 - 1 Comment »
Be Sociable, Share!

…is one of the most bodacious selling points of Spread, the Shampoo-style sex comedy that everyone thought would sell quickly after Saturday night’s premiere, even if they didn’t think the film was quite the sum of its body parts. There his bare back end was, parading through several scenes, thrusting onto Anne Heche and other naked actresses his wannabe-gigolo character beds.
Ironically, Kutcher’s back end might be a big-ass factor slowing a Spread sale. Back end as in profit participation, that is. Despite widespread agreement the film has the appeal for a widespread theatrical release, not to mention video and Skinamax, it appears to be too high for even some bigger buyers.
(It isn’t always a stumbling block: Senator was happy to pony up significant back end – plus just under $5 million, plus a $10 million p&a commitment – for some of the talent behind the under-$20 million Brooklyn’s Finest.)
Summit was one of several upstart distribs to make a distribution deal offer, but sales reps thought it was low (low-seven figures, rumor has it). Perhaps Kutcher’s wife Demi or her old co-star Robert Redford felt they were indecent proposals and advised him against them.
Whatever the reason, it’s led sales reps CAA and Endeavor – which has taken pride in getting good deals from extended bidding periods – to not put out too quickly. Summit has since withdrawn interest, but may get back into bed with negotiations at some point if another distrib doesn’t pony up for Kutcher’s back end (and a substantial MG) beforehand.

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in 10 Days of Sundance, Festivals | 1 Comment »

One Response to “Ashton Kutcher’s back end … (rumor)”

  1. T. Holly says:
    January 20, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    You have the best deal scoops.

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