May 5, 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
I’m jazzed about Star Trek too, but just think it’s ranked too high – what do you guys think Paramount is really expecting from this? Do you think they really think they can pull off Iron Man or Transformers numbers? Tough to tell, I just think there’s a ceiling on it.
And is it just me or have you ever seen a director make the rounds recently in promoting his own movie more than McG for Terminator Salvation? This guy is on the web, virtually every day, doing magazine stories, etc. – to avoid cynicism, I have to think he really believes in this movie. Big upside there, but sorry, I think it’s going to get crushed opening weekend by Night at the Museum 2 – Warners really should have planted its own solo release date.
thanks for posting Dave.. lots to chew on.
Firstly who were the studio plants who thought the 2nd Pelham remake would end up as #1?! Call me cuckoo but I think A&D might surprise some people. If hotbloggers know anything (jury still out) then its going to be a close race for the films vying for places 3-6. Salvation though a strong franchisee could end up doing a Babylon or a Riddick, T4 could be the surprise under achiever this summer.
Who can make a case for any of the top 6 being 4 quad films. You could make a case for UP but the next ones would be A&D which people are saying will stink more than NIGHT. Did anyone actually like NIGHT? Did it slay em in Peoria?
Geoff,
with the initial reaction to Star Trek, i absolutely think it can do 235 million. But it won’t hit Iron Man numbers.
I thought Night at the Museum was such a good concept that it overwhelmed its director’s best efforts to blow it.
Sequels to Harry Potter, Terminator, X-Men and Fast/Furious…
I liked Summer 2009 better last time when it was called Summer 2003.
Jeffrey, I think at a time when BRAND seems to be at an all time high in terms of generating success (“Fast and Furious”, “Friday the 13th”, etc) I’m sure “Terminator 4” will do fine.
I think it’s GI Joe that’s looking at being a potential underachiever. Sure, it’s got “brand” but… as an outdated toy and starring nobody people seem to care about (in terms of box office that is). I obviously haven’t seen it, but I can’t help but think it would’ve been more interesting if it were made in the 1980s. At least then it would have some kitsch value (and I am ignoring the direct-to-video animated film from 1987).
Although after Transformers and now G.I. Joe can we expect a live action version of My Little Pony: The Movie?
Nope…Star Trek won’t reach Iron Man numbers. There is a definate audience out there for it, but there are more people that will NEVER see a Star Trek film. I would think that it will do Casino Royale numbers…But will Paramount be happy if it does less than 200. Based on the lack of any quality Sci-fi action film last Christmas(yes I am looking at you Keanu), I wonder if Paramount should have kept it orginal release date or maybe push it till June 12th. Wolvie and T4 would be calmed down and kids are out of school.
Iron Man had women who wanted to see it(thanks Robert and Gwyneth) and kids wanted to see the superhero. I just don’t see the demand from those two demos for Star Trek. Plus, kids are still in school during May so those week day numbers will be down compared to June.
But, hell, I’ll be there based on JJ and the reviews.
I see T4 making the same as T3..even with the PG-13 rating, but with the era of 200 million dollar budgets will that be enough.
As for underachiever, I see Museum 2 and Angels doing less than the orginals. Successful, but I see May as more doubles and singles…..I doubt anyone will hit a home run.
There’s only one original, non-sequel, non-branded film in that line-up. Sad.
if the star trek reviews are consistent with this one, it could do iron man numbers….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1172164/Out-world-The-Mails-film-critic-gives-verdict-new-Star-Trek-movie.html
There is no way that Trek will do Iron Man numbers. That’s lunacy.
Iron man was lightning in a bottle. It was right place, right time, right tone, right actor, right Black Sabbath music in teasers, etc etc. That doesn’t happen very often, especially considering it was about IRON MAN, and not superman, spiderman or batman or any other better known Marvel icon. Marvel will NEVER achieve that kind of success with any other property, be it Thor, Ant-man or whatever else.
No 18 year old has even seen a Star Trek series on tv that wasn’t in reruns. Kids will see it, and that’s that — on to the following weekend.
My friends (non geeks) all saw DK. I told them they had to see it, and they did. When I tell them they have to see Trek, most of them won’t because it’s “Trek”. And it’s about aliens and spaceships.
Simplistic, but that’s how it is. IMO.
Star Trek: Enterprise ended 4 years ago. I’m sure there were a few 14 year-olds watching it (not very many, though, since half of the episodes were pitched to 40-something fans of the original series).
From the looks of the trailers, STAR TREK could use some hot chicks or something.
Like, Zoe Saldana is a beautiful woman, but that chick always seems moody and/or unpleasant, or at least humorless; She was in a couple things around the same time a few years ago (one of them being Haven with Orlando Bloom) that I happened to see within weeks of each other, and she gave pretty much the same one-note, sullen, whisper-voiced icy performance from film to film.
But shouldn’t Captain Kirk be taxing some hot-ass chicks?
If they’d let me direct STAR TREK I’d put Jason Statham and Paul Walker in there as Kirk and Bones (Spock is a douche and thus expendable… fuck that pointed-eared prick), and the rest of the crew would be all hot chicks.
Oh, and Chekhov should be that bad-ass Karl Roden dude from Running Scared and RockNRolla, not that poor man’s Adam Brody they got for this one.
Then it should have Michelle Trachtenberg, Lindsay Lohan, Christina Ricci, Jessica Biel, and Odette Yustman.
They could call it SQUACK TREK.
GOOD IDEA.
Remake, yes, but Pelham 123 is hardly a brand. Most young moviegoers will think it is original.
“with the initial reaction to Star Trek, i absolutely think it can do 235 million.”
Worldwide? Absolutely!
christian wrote: There’s only one original, non-sequel, non-branded film in that line-up. Sad.”
It is indeed. Can we get Wall St out of Hollywood? Sure it’s been big corps for years upon years but who’s working in development these days, all the risk mgmt actuaries booted from Lloyd’s and AIG?
Even young moviegoers won’t think Pelham is original, they’ll be wondering where Keanu, Samuel L or whatsherface are.