MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Return Of Box Office Hell

Picture 17.png
And the premiere of MCN Weekend
mcnwknd.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “The Return Of Box Office Hell”

  1. I could see Hannah Montana dropping much harder (sub 10m?) due to the fact that the audience is being courted by Zac. Or are these two movies aimed at different age groups (that would be seperated by no more than a few years, surely).

  2. mysteryperfecta says:

    I like the Weekend page.

  3. If I may, that is a terrific layout for the weekend page. Easy to find everything you want and its all organized in a logical manner. I heartily approve.

  4. LexG says:

    Nice layout; On the flip side, anyone else having minor load problems with this blog last few days? Seems a notch slower than usual, sometimes freezes? Maybe it’s due to more graphics/video-post threads/polls?
    Finke’s Friday night report is calling STATE OF PLAY as #2???? Anyone see THAT coming?
    I had that pegged as one of those “smart adult” potboilers that opens at like $6 mil for the whole weekend.
    She doesn’t have numbers up, but if it’s second only to 17 Again and ahead of Crank, what, is it gonna do like 25 this weekend?
    Either Crowe’s still got it, Crank underperformed… or Naomi Watts and Clive Owen are even less a box-office than already assumed.

  5. Nope… 17 Again did $10 million and State Of Play did only $4.6 million. Crank 2 opened to $2.6 million, thus ending Lionsgates’s 2009 hot streak (New In Town excepted). Of course, Finke’s numbers are often… um… premature, so make of it what you will.

  6. doug r says:

    An excuse for Lex to get out of town:
    Twilight tornado touches down
    http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2009/04/17/9141231-sun.html

  7. Martin S says:

    Very nice layout.

  8. the keoki says:

    nice…. i love the box office hell. it means that big numbers are on the way!!! woo hoo

  9. the keoki says:

    and the reviews are great. i really wanted to know what Dave thought of Crank though??

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