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
That’s funny. I had no clue Beckinsale wasn’t in it until I read that just now. I just ASSUMED she was in it. The actress in the poster looks like her enough that I didn’t know it was someone else.
A friend of mine told me she was seeing Underworld: ROTL this weekend. I’ll bet $10 that on Monday she’ll tell me “it was pretty good, but that what’s-her-name from the first two Underworlds wasn’t in it”
Holy crap! It’s Sky Captain! As in the only Sky Captain Sky Captain on the net?
Speaking of WB pimping old NL shit, maybe they’ve just spent all their energies on plastering the universe with more trailers, tv spots and posters for “He’s Just Not That Into You” THAN ANY OTHER MOVIE EVER MADE.
I see the TV spot 40-50 times a day, the movie trailer before EVERY movie I see, the poster every 11 feet. I didn’t see that much advert and promo for fucking IRON MAN.
I would not be surprised if WB has spent *560 MILLION* on the He’s Not… campaign. It is the MOST-PROMOTED MOVIE EVER MADE. EVER. Yes, ever.
All that plus it’s THE movie that every JIM AND PAM FAN! can agree on, I’ll predict a 40 mil opening weekend. Or at least that that’s what they’re expecting.
Because, you know, E FROM ENTOURAGE is a MOVIE STAR with his eminently warm, loveable screen persona.
The problem with Inkheart is that there have been a good handful of films over the past year or two that have followed the same template (fantasy story in which fictional elements become real). WB couldn’t win with this title. Between Bedtime Stories and NOTM 2, there was no good time to release this. It will probably do much better on DVD.
….think maybe 3-D might’ve helped “Inkheart” the way it did Fraser’s “Journey to the Center of the Earth” last summer?
Nah. Probably not.
Softley remains a decent director, though. Maybe he should go back to Henry James or the Beatles and leave the kid’s stuff to Disney.
Despite its lengthy shelf life, “He’s Just Not” still looks appealing.
My only concern is the dread Jennifer Connelly who’s about as unsuited to romantic comedy as Hilary Swank.
Paramount has to be disappointed with Benjamin Button – they gave their all, got the big opening they needed, got the many Oscar nod’s they need – and it’s STILL probably not going to crack $150 million. I’ve seen it and it’s just not a very easy film to love or be grabbed by – the word of mouth on this thing just probably isn’t that good. That said, they still think that $400 million worldwide is a possibility.
Yet, for all this talk about how “irrelevant” the Oscars are, they have now powered a small half-Hindi film with absolutly no stars who are not Indian, and difficult subject matter relating to kids, on its way towards $100 million. The movie plays how it plays – I’ve seen it three times, now, and people are certainly responding to Slumdog. But, some credit has to go to the Oscar boost for making this film hit. Of course, it’s still about the movie – it’s a populist film, no matter the dressing. You cannot say the same for The Reader.
Frost/Nixon was never going to break out, no matter how many nods you gave it – I love it, but it’s this years Good Night, Good Luck, The Insider, or Quiz Show. Compelling insideaseball media/politics drams with strong pedigress, but no real marketing hook.
Too bad about Donkey Punch (and to a lesser extent the Killshot and Outlander dumps).
“Paramount has to be disappointed with Benjamin Button – they gave their all, got the big opening they needed, got the many Oscar nod’s they need – and it’s STILL probably not going to crack $150 million. I’ve seen it and it’s just not a very easy film to love or be grabbed by – the word of mouth on this thing just probably isn’t that good. That said, they still think that $400 million worldwide is a possibility.”
I think Benjamin Button has earned a lot more than I would have guess at the outset. For an austere art house film with a melancholy tone and one downer of a turning point after another, they’ve gotten a damn good result. If they overspent on the making of the movie, that’s their own fool fault for believing there’d be a blockbuster at the end of the road to make up for it.
As far as word of mouth goes, in my little circle of friends and acquaintances, it ISN’T bad; but it isn’t great either. I’d describe the average word of mouth as “It’s pretty good…”, with a shoulder shrug and a little head bobbing thrown in to punctuate the mildly positive reaction.
“All that plus it’s THE movie that every JIM AND PAM FAN! can agree on”
As a one-time Jim and Pam fan myself (huh? what does that shit even mean to regular people?), I don’t think the folks pushing this movie are going to like the agreement I’ve already made for myself.
Hint: if I ever ingest a poison, and need to vomit in order to save my life IMMEDIATELY, all I have to do is cue up that goddamn “MySpacing’s the new booty call” or however it goes line from the ads. Lock me in a room with that one and I’ll put all the world’s bulimics combined to shame.
…maybe if “Inkheart” had been in 3-D, AND if WB had stuck with their original (for 2009 anyway) January 9th release date, it might have fared better.
In retrospect, opening a kid-skewing movie like “Inkheart” just seven days after rugrat-friendly “Paul Blart” and “Hotel for Dogs” (both of which had bigger than anticipated opening weekends ) wasn’t a smart move.
Opposite “Bride Wars,” “Not Easily Broken” and “The Unborn,” it could have had the “family” market all to itself…at least for a week.
Just for the record, Kate Beckinsale IS in “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans” enough for the studio to have pretended she has a big presence (she has a brief scene at the end and she narrates). I kinda like it that Screen Gems didn’t oversell that, which they probably could have.
Frost/Nixon’s problem was the predictability of the story and the terrible marketing for people unfamiliar with the story.
They could have done a much better trailer if they had shown them sitting down, people running around them, whispering in their ears, the electricity building towards what was about the be said, and right before they open their mouths, boom, there’s the title.
The spots now are like “WERE GOING TO GIVE RICHARD NIXON THE TRIAL HE NEVER GOT”
“WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT’S NOT ILLEGAL”
“WE GOT HIM…..”
So, in 30 seconds you just gave me everything.
Premise: Giving Richard Nixon the trial he never got.
Conflict: Nixon Gets Angry!
Resolution: Frost gets him!
Thanks for saving me 2 hours.
What? Oh, it’s about how realistically the actors portray their real life counterparts. So im paying ten bucks to see Langella’s Nixon impression.
Yeah, that can wait for cable.
Great to see “Inkheart” flop. It got the endorsement of the Parents Television Council, whose latest censorship crusade targets Britney Spears.
“Frost/Nixon” = Name-Checking + Oscar-Whoring. You couldn’t say the same for “W.”
“Benjamin Button” is already running out of gas. Theaters were downgrading it before the Oscar noms were announced. Product flow the next 3 weeks won’t help.
Is there any evidence that Kate Beckinsale actually opens a movie?
The selling point of the first Underworld was the vampires versus werewolves hook. You can argue that she opened the second one, perhaps…but what else?
Definitely glad Screen Gems didn’t pull the Vin Diesel/Tokyo Drift scam…but they had plenty of Bill Nighy to sell, and though you wouldn’t necessarily call him someone who opens movies, his Davy Jones was a more iconic character than anything Beckinsale’s done.
Here’s my obligatory “Chucky, your kneejerk positions are wrong and crazy” posting for the day.
There seems to be much less bitching and whining about the Best Doc category for this year’s Oscars.
Did the Academy fix their rules for it while I wasn’t looking, or did it just come out this way?
Who’s taking up kneejerk positions? Every time I make a valid point jeffmcm acts like a Bill O’Reilly wannabe.
A reply to a Deadline Daily post blows apart the jeffmcm worldview: Movies “with no audience in mind other than each other and Academy voters”. THAT is what name-checking and Oscar-Whoring are all about.
Chucky, you aren’t making valid points.
Your position: Every movie for which the marketing team chooses to use ‘Name-checking’ and ‘Oscar-whoring’ is a bad movie.
My retort: The movie’s marketing has no direct connection to the quality of the movie itself and to consistently state otherwise, with no further argument, is a transparently foolish position to take. Good movies will sometimes use this strategy to convince upscale audiences of the pedigree of their films; bad movies will sometimes not use this strategy even if they can because that’s not the audience they’re chasing.
This is the position I have been arguing for a couple of years now, waiting for some retort – any response whatsoever. And Chucky, you have never provided a single one.
I would be gratified if you would provide any supporting argument or evidence or even your own personal history for why you consider this to be the case – but just repeating the same mantra, over and over again, does not do the job.
Chucky: It’s precisely BECAUSE certain films are less commercial that the marketers resort to the dreaded name-checking and Oscar-whoring. On subject matter alone, something like Rev Road is dead in the water for sure — so the only way it gets made is by landing a prestige cast and director upon whom the promotion can be focused. The other option is to never make any movie that lacks mass market appeal.
I have two words for you: Georgia Rule.
Okay, so your entire argument is based on ONE MOVIE?!?!
That is stupid.
Chucky: I have a question for you. Let’s say a movie gets made. It’s in the can, all done — but it hasn’t yet been released or marketed.
Now let’s say that for some reason you are privileged and are allowed to see the movie early, before the marketing department has made any decisions about how to market it.
My question is, after you’ve seen this movie, might you have an opinion on whether it’s good or bad, or would you be unable to form an opinion about it at that point in time?