MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady – 669

friest060609.png
Apparently The Hangover overcrowded Land of the Lost.
Ironically, the only non-sequel R-rated comedy to open better than The Hangover looks to be opening? Sex & The City. Ying and yang.
The internal discussions at studios will be the 300 (according to director Todd Phillips) screenings of The Hangover in recent months, building word of mouth for the comedy that can’t be sold as roughly on TV as they want people to know it is and has no natural box office draw starring in the film. Of course, the problem with duplicating this is that people have to actually like the movie for it to work. But I can tell you that going back to Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle, New Line kicked themselves (after the fact) for not taking that route.
Phillips talks about the screenings in the DP/30 conversation: “The studio bar was moved because they came and saw our first test screening and saw that this was something special and said,

Be Sociable, Share!

45 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – 669”

  1. movieman says:

    No surprises.
    A few days ago I predicted that “LOTL” had a very good shot at becoming this summer’s “Speed Racer” (yes, it is); that “Hangover” would exceed every reasonable estimate (yes, it did); and that “My Life in Ruins” would be DOA (uh-huh on that count, too). I’m not sure why I expected “Drag Me to Hell” to hold any better than it did, but yikes! Guess we won’t be seeing that sequel after all.
    Nice opening for “Away We Go,” although “Sunshine Cleaning” (not “Little Miss Sunshine”) b.o. is probably the best it can reasonably hope for when it expands later this month.
    Latest indication that Film Culture is dead:
    Even in NYC, the cinemania capitol of North America, a generic, under-the-radar gay indie (“The Art of Being Straight”) outgrossed Jia Zhang-ke’s rapturously reviewed “24 City” on opening day. I know they were only $50 apart, but that tiny sum does speak volumes, doesn’t it?

  2. winston smith says:

    how would LOTL see black ink if it cost $70M? considering you’re often claiming numerous successful films aren’t making money i don’t see how a $20M opening — leading to, what, maybe $50M domestic? — could turn a profit especially if you add in $35M marketing.

  3. martin says:

    Winston, lets say it cost 70 mill, add 50 mill in worldwide marketing. It makes 150 worldwide, 70% of which gets back to the studios. You’re in black possibly before DVD, or easily with DVD. If it costs $125 mill, (which I don’t know how much LOtL cost) it’s probably in the red until maybe way at the tail end of the DVD’s sales cycle.

  4. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “My Life in Ruins” is arthouse/upmarket, so it will be around for a while if your area supports arty pics.
    “Away We Go” has better promotion, better distribution and better NYC bookings. It’ll go national for certain.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    I figured that since they each involve name-checking (“from director Sam Mendes”, “from the makers of My Big Fat Greek Wedding”) that they were doomed at the screenplay stage.

  6. steamfreshmeals says:

    When you lead with “Romantic and Funny” from Larry King, you know you are in trouble.
    Searchlight dumped it on a nice amount of screens and didnt spend any marketing dollars behind it, so yes, they should be fine. All theyre in for is the prints. They dont spend when they know they have a piece of shit, and make money on ancillaries (DVD, Pay TV, etc.)
    Arthouse/upmarket on a wide break of 1,164 screens?! It is no market/garbage.

  7. movieman says:

    …I think they really were just doing a big art project that happened to cost a truckload of money….
    Not sure whether I really believe that Siberling, Farrell & Co. ever considered “Land of the Lost” a “big art project” (the Wachowskis and “Speed Racer”? Hell yeah), and I’m probably one of the movie’s biggest defenders, lol.
    For the record, I still despise “The Hangover,” even though it’s clearly on it’s way to becoming one of the summer’s
    biggest–if not the biggest–cost-to-cume hits.
    Hell, I actually found the moldy collection of ethnic/regional stereotypes/cliches in “Ruins” more appealing than the overgrown frat boys from “The Hangover” who positively reek of a (ridiculously) exaggerated sense of entitlement.
    Yes, Chucky. I know that “Away” is indeed going “national” after this weekend’s platform launch. I just don’t see it doing appreciably better than, say, “Sunshine Cleaning” after the last theatrical dollar is counted.
    Best case scenario? Outgrossing “Revolutionary Road”‘s middling $23-million domestic cume. But that’s a stretch since I can’t envision Focus ever going beyond, say, 500 prints. Surely they learned their lesson last summer with “Hamlet 2” re: trying to market a hipster “indie-ish” to the great unwashed multiplex masses.

  8. christian says:

    Folks who want their frat-boy hi-jinks will get them from THE HANGOVER not LOTL. If LOTL had starred say, Brendan Fraser, and wasn’t an exercise in cynical re-imagining, you’d be looking at a big family hit. But my sister isn’t taking her kids to see Chaka feel up a woman. LOTL deserves its fate.

  9. Rothchild says:

    There are a lot more women seeing and enjoying The Hangover than you realize. Women only wanting something “sweet” is a myth.

  10. steamfreshmeals says:

    Agree with Rothchild, women are dirty creatures, and part of why we love them

  11. anghus says:

    Hooray for R Rated Comedies.
    Land of the Lost seemed to be a bogus proposition from the start. Dave is absolutely right on the stats. You can’t take a guy who only opens movies to 20-30 million and think a T-Rex and Sleestaks are going to make it into a monumental opening. This should surprise no one.
    Good point Christian. With Brendan Fraser, this one could have possibly opened to 30-40 million and come in closer to Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D numbers. Either way, with the money they spent on the budget the prospect of profit was going to be a difficult.

  12. chris says:

    I have some issues with the movie itself, but I think you’ll find you’re missing the boat on “Away,” movieman. It’s going to double your outside estimate. At least.

  13. Wrecktum says:

    Here’s an idea, Universal: don’t release a shitty hard-PG13 raunchy comedy the same date as a well-received R-rated raunchy comedy. Also, don’t release a supposedly kid-friendly movie a week after a Pixar release. Bottom line: LOTL is ill-conceived and poorly positioned. Don’t look at next week’s market-share reports, Uni.

  14. movieman says:

    I hope you’re right about “Away” being a breakout type movie, Chris. Love Mendes (the greatest theater-turned-film-director since Mike Nichols came on the scene in the mid-’60s), like Eggers (he isn’t nearly as smug as those asswipes from “The Hangover,” despite what Tony Scott may think) and really, really dig most of the cast (I normally despise Gyllenhaal–talk about smug/smarmy!–but she was perfectly cast here).
    Yet I’m hedging my bets about Focus’ ability to successfully market the picture to the masses. (Miramax couldn’t do it with “Flirting With Disaster” 13 years ago either.)
    I wouldn’t defend “LOTL” to my death bed (unlike, say, “Speed Racer” last summer), but I’m sure glad that it wasn’t done as a clunkily earnest, slavishly faithful adaptation starring that “Journey to the Center of the Earth”/”Mummy” hunk of balsa Brendan Fraser. While I still prefer Silberling’s “personal” movies (“City of Angels” and especially the absurdly underrated “Moonlight Mile”), I’ll take “LOTL” over “Lemony Snicket” and “Casper” any day. As I said a few days ago, the marketing campaign completely missed the boat by targeting wee bairns more than Farrell fans, and Universal picked a really lousy release date. The original “LOTL” series was probably as misguided a choice to movie-ize in the first place as “Speed Racer” since its name recognition factor hardly rates alongside, say, a “Get Smart” with contempo auds. And yeah, I liked “LOTL” more (a lot more) than the Carrell/Hathaway “Smart,” too.

  15. martin says:

    LOTL as a PG, Fraser, 70 mill. family movie with a few off-color jokes probably would have made its money back. This LOTL looks like something I might check out on DVD, and you’d never catch me watching the Fraser one, but I do not think it really stands out in the marketplace right now. I think it’s one of those situations where trying to please everyone, trying for a 3 quadrant appeal, they ended up pleasing no one. It’s not a science, so I’m glad they tried for something a little riskier with this movie, but the safe approach would have been the better choice financially. To me the opposite end of the spectrum, going hard-r, would have been a terrible choice unless they kept the budget very low, like 50 or less. Hangover cost like 20-something, so even if it didn’t wind up a big hit it would have made its money back.

  16. Cadavra says:

    David, how is S&TC not a sequel? It picked up right where the TV series left off. Not a sequel to another movie? I’ll give you that. But it’s still a sequel in the strict definition of the word.

  17. a_loco says:

    It’s more a spinoff than a sequel, but I think the point is that it had a built in fanbase, unlike The Hangover.

  18. Nicol D says:

    I’ve seen the posters for LOTL in my area hardcore on every bus shelter and subway platform for about 3 weeks now. I have liked probably as many Will Ferrel films as I have not.
    Finally, I walked past a wall sized poster of it with my significant other this weel and, looking at his dumb ass face in his perma dumb ass scream mode, I said, how many times can they sell Ferrel doing the exact same thing in the exact same movie.
    The BO seems to say not so often.
    Thing is, ostensibly this film is for me. I loved the Krofft Superstars and saw this show as a kid. But it was never a beloved show. HR Pufinstuff was really the hook for Krofft and after that…Electra Woman and Dyna Girl. LOTL always felt kinda lame.
    I am not at all surprised at how poorly it opened. This is just a bad studio decision at trying hit at the Gen X crowd and not really hitting the right target.
    What I would really love to see is a live action concetual musical version of School House Rock! Now that would impress.

  19. Are we thinking this’ll have Wedding Crashers legs though?

  20. Chucky in Jersey says:

    @jeffmcm: “Away We Go” ID’s the director, a time-honored practice for promoting motion pictures.
    “My Life in Ruins” is sold by referencing a 6-year-old chick flick (see the trailer) and a 7-year-old arthouse crossover (see the newspaper ads).
    When you have to promote a new release by bringing up older movies THAT is name-checking, a disease for which Hollywood cannot cure itself. The general public gets it — jeffmcm doesn’t.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    “…a time-honored practice for promoting motion pictures.”
    AARRRGHHHHHHHH (head explodes from frustration)

  22. When people wonder why the glut of horror product are either remakes of Asian horror films or reboots/remakes of 70s and 80s slasher films, just sigh and weep as we acknowledge that Drag Me to Hell will likely make less total than Friday the 13th made over opening weekend. Reap what you so, horror fans. I didn’t even love the film like a lot of people, but at least it was trying.

  23. Blackcloud says:

    “@jeffmcm: ‘Away We Go’ ID’s the director, a time-honored practice for promoting motion pictures.
    ‘My Life in Ruins’ is sold by referencing a 6-year-old chick flick (see the trailer) and a 7-year-old arthouse crossover (see the newspaper ads).
    When you have to promote a new release by bringing up older movies THAT is name-checking, a disease for which Hollywood cannot cure itself.”
    Let there no longer be any doubt: Chucky is insane.

  24. Yes, because selling a Nia Vardarlos rom-com about a single Greek woman by name-checking a Nia Vardarlos rom-com about a single Greek woman… that made $241million? ABSOLUTELY ABSURD! Why on Earth would anybody think that that would work? (it couldn’t possibly be that people figured the movie stank despite the name checking?)

  25. LexG says:

    I’ll never say another snide word about BRADLEY COOPER again… Holy shit, Z.G. and Helms will get all the buzz for “Hangover,” but Cooper was slaying me with his smarmy asshole routine. Dude RULES.
    GOOD MOVIE.
    Also, Heather Graham gave me a boner. So did Bartha’s Phoebe Cates lookalike fiancee; Who was that chick?
    LEX RATING: B+

  26. djiggs says:

    Some thoughts after seeing “The Hangover” for the second time in small town central Texas…
    1) This movie is going north of $200 million dollars domestic…it is a great date movie as I saw a nice mix of young couples, middle age couples and even senior couples in both audiences (about 90% capacity). I overheard one teenage girl saying that this movie was one of her top five freaking comedies ever. Word of mouth is going & will continue to be huge especially since you have some mediocre looking comedies (Year One, really) before its main audience gets sucked away by Transformers.
    2) This movie is one of the best cast movies of the year…not just the main cast & rescuing Heather Graham’s career trajectory but really props to casting Mike Tyson (as himself), Rob Riggle & Cleo King, the great Jeffrey Tambor, Rachael Harris (as Melissa), hilarious Ken Jeong (as Mr. Chow), Jenard Burks (as Tyson’s main bodyguard Leonard), Matt Walsh & Murray Gershenz (as Dr. Valsh & his patient), Mike Epps (as “Black Doug”), Dan Finnerty (as the wedding singer), and Nathalie Faye (as the hotel front desk). This cast hit the mark and then some.
    3) The screenplay deserves an Oscar nod for best original screenplay…because it take a tired premise and shakes up it wonderfully. It deserves to be recognized.
    4) The photos during the end credits continue to push the story forward and does not end up being a stupid gag reel. It is also another reason why word of mouth will be strong…just to see the craziness of the photos….spoiler!!!!! I cannot believe that the MPAA allowed two shots of a blowjob in progress in a R-rated film.
    5) This movie solidifies in my mind at least the perception of Warner Brothers as the “swinging dick” studio. Is there any studio in town that embraces male (or masculine) behavior (in all its forms) as the main vehicle to watch its films (good or bad). Look at the films in the past few years: The Departed, Gran Torino, Watchmen, Observe & Report, Terminator franchise, Batman, Superman, etc. Occasionally, you get the Sisterhood of Traveling pants pictures (somehow escaping under Jeff Robinov)…but even its memorable female characters often have bigger balls than the men i.e. Bettie Davis films, Joan Crawford films, & Hillary Swank in Million Dollar Baby.
    5) The Hangover will be on my Top 10 list by the end of the year, and currently is my favorite film this year.

  27. LexG says:

    Djiggs, AWESOME post, especially the paragraph about bad-ass WB. And I’d also throw some huge props at TODD PHILLIPS, one of the few comedy guys going who shoots comedies that look like REAL MOVIES instead of some cutesy, pastel-colored sitcom lightweight bullshit. His widescreen compositions here had an almost “crime movie” feel… Probably not the kind of thing the masses consciously pick up on, but I definitely appreciated that it gave some heft and film-world smarts to the material.
    Also, again, HOLY SHIT HEATHER GRAHAM GIANT BONER.
    H-GRAHAM back on the LEX HOT CHARTS.
    And, dude, TOTALLY right about the credit photos… the audience was loving it anyway, but that shit brought down the house and the place erupted in applause… That alone will send word of mouth through the roof, since a very last image, impression, or scene of any movie that just SLAYS is THE memory people walk out with.

  28. djiggs says:

    Thanks, Lex. And you brought up another point that I loved about the movie…the use of wide shots, realistic characterizations (i.e. Alan is not played as a wild and crazy guy…but as really socially inept, which makes him even more human and funny).
    By the way, you may have got a boner from Heather Graham (which I totally agree with since worshiping her body in Boogie Nights & Killing Me Softly), but I about jizzed when I saw Todd Phillips lovingly pay homage to Scorsese’s Casino desert scene with DeNiro & Pesci. He even did the reflecting sun glasses shot of the approaching car on Mr. Chow’s glasses just as the reflection of Pesci’s car zoomed across DeNiro’s sunglasses. It goes to your point of giving “some heft and film-world smarts to the material.” To paraphrase Gene Siskel, the movie does not happen in “movieland” but at least a somewhat approximation of our world.
    By the way, the actress who plays the bride to be Tracy Garner is Sasha Barrese. Todd Phillips and the casting director have exceptional taste in casting hot looking,capable actresses.

  29. Hallick says:

    “My Life in Ruins” is arthouse/upmarket, so it will be around for a while if your area supports arty pics.”
    “My Life In Ruins” is a made for Lifetime rom-com with a travel agent and a fake beard straight out of the nether regions of an SNL soundstage which would have looked better if it were coated in the late Chris Farley’s drug vomit. Arty my arse!
    “‘Away We Go” ID’s the director, a time-honored practice for promoting motion pictures.”
    So jeff, you see, name dropping is okay as long as its time-honored name dropping (even though name-dropping a film’s director is one of the least time-honored traditions in cinema history).

  30. djiggs says:

    Lex,
    I really felt glad to see Heather Graham in a very joyful role … she really is a great, funny ray of sunshine in the movie. I am so glad that she is in a successful movie again and hopefully gets some better parts in the future because of the success.

  31. a_loco says:

    “I am not at all surprised at how poorly it opened. This is just a bad studio decision at trying hit at the Gen X crowd and not really hitting the right target. ”
    The fact that you still use the term “Gen X” shows how completely fucking out of touch you are. Move ahead twenty years, bro.

  32. Eeps, djiggs – you really saw Killing Me Softly?
    Heather Graham was quite excellent on Scrubs, but that was the last thing I saw her in (it may very well have been the actual last thing she did, but I can’t be bothered IMDb-ing her to tell you the truth).

  33. Joe Leydon says:

    The Hangover is pretty damn good, and LexG is right on the nose when he talks about the “crime movie” feel. As I noted in my Variety review: With just a few tweaks, this could have been the scenario for a dead-serious ’40s film noir. No kidding. And that somehow makes it all the funnier.
    BTW: LexG, have you ever seen the original D.O.A.?

  34. leahnz says:

    wow, i’m actually looking forward to ‘the hangover’ now (i was before, but only mildly. i’m even willing to give the vacuous, uninteresting heather g. the benefit of the doubt, and i’m heartened not to hear more ‘ugly’ comments about the fiance this time out)

  35. scooterzz says:

    fwiw — i tried to be offended by some of the politically incorrect humor in ‘the hangover’ but it just didn’t play….in the context of the film almost everything works (one questionable scene might run into a prob)….silly, lightweight fun…

  36. LexG says:

    Joe, the ’88 D.O.A. was a formative years fave mostly because I was Captain Quaid back then, and I managed to catch the original in film school, but sad to say, I don’t remember it very well… It’s an unedeniably GREAT noir hook — even the CRANK movies owe a considerable debt. Might have to track down the original to refresh my memory.
    Speaking of Phillips comedies, how was School For Scoundrels? Didn’t see it (probably out of knee-jerk distate for any prolonging of Napoleon Dynamite’s one-trick movie career) and didn’t remember that T.P. directed it; Worth checking out?
    THANKS FOR REMINDING ME to finally buy KILLING ME SOFTLY for 5.99. See also, Broken and Adrift in Manhattan for H-GRAHAM fans.
    (Lechery aside, leah, she’s not in it enough to bother you and is positively DELIGHTFUL anyway.)

  37. leahnz says:

    yay! i didn’t mind heather in my beloved ‘bowfinger’ so i am capable of finding her tolerable, here’s hoping for tolerable!
    (i, too, have a bizarre soft spot for the quaid/ryan DOA, hinging on quaid’s charisma and ryan’s sheer cuteness, one of those watchable mysteries that lacks guts and brains but has a bit of heart and a certain charm that keeps me watching whenever it reruns on cable or whatever)
    ‘school for scoundrels’ was irredeemably painful for me

  38. I gotta slightly disagree about the ‘swinging dick’ thing. Yes, they make their share of masculine franchises, but WB is also the studio that has released, just in the last few years, The Brave One, The Reaping, The Invasion, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (1 and 2), Sex and The City, He’s Just Not That Into You, Kit Kittridge: An American Girl, and The Women. Yes, some of these were New Line acquisitions, some of them were outright flops, and some of them may be have released somewhat unwillingly. But Jeff Robinev’s stupid comments aside, I can’t think of another studio with a bigger female-driven slate (maybe Univseral?).
    Yes, Heather Graham was wonderful on Scrubs. Of course, everyone is good on Scrubs. It was just one of those shows that brought everyone involved to their top potential… even Tara Reid was funny for a couple episodes.

  39. scooterzz says:

    lex — get netflix…you really can’t compare the ’88 d.o.a. to the original…. the bradbury building never looked more sweet…. do the homework, son….

  40. jesse says:

    You guys are going way too nuts for The Hangover and Todd Phillips. Yes, it’s nice to see him shooting like a real movie and not like a sitcom — the look of the movie is pretty nice. And yes, the movie certainly has some laughs. But yikes, the Todd Phillips sloppy-jackass touch is there with a vengeance:
    1.) I dig the noir-mystery aspect of the missing-groom story, I do, as well as the comedy of implication, not seeing what they were up to, even though it’s basically the plot of Dude Where’s My Car. But Phillips doesn’t actually give enough of a shit to make these pieces add up to anything. The movie just sort of careens meaninglessly from one location to the next; occasionally they pick up clues, but it doesn’t piece together in a clever or satisfying way. It’s the same non-rhythm he employs in Old School; we just kinda stumble along from scene to scene without much payoff. It’s not as egregiously sloppy in this movie because the characters are, after all, stumbling around in a hungover daze. But if this is his version of a tight, building comedic narrative, well, that sucks.
    2.) All women are whores or harpies. What a hilarious and insightful worldview. Honestly, I’d rather he just eliminate women entirely from his movies than parade around like such a creepy asshole. Djiggs praises Heather Graham above… OK, she is a cheery and pleasant presence in the movie. But how many scenes does she have?! Three, right? And she barely does anything. Because Phillips doesn’t want funny women — he wants women who are “funny” because how evil they are (like Bradley Cooper’s horribly unfunny role in Wedding Crashers, come to think of it) and he wants women who are “likable” because of how hot they are. And of course some people will totally fall for it, and call Heather Graham CHARMING because, you know, she’s hot and she smiles. Amazing. Grow the fuck up. Heather Graham is hot, great. Give her something more to do! I’m not saying she’s some underutilized comic genius; in fact, it would’ve been great to see him cast an actual female comedian for once (then again, he does cast Rachel Harris and just has her play the unredeemable bitch part to the unfunny hilt). But OK, you’ve got Heather Graham because Phillips doesn’t like women who are naturally funny. You can do it like Bowfinger and have some fun with her, or you can just make her the hooker with a heart of gold, presented as a meaningless hot alternative to the Rachel Harris straw-woman character who exists just to be told off. I have no problem with vicious caricature — Anna Faris is generally amazing and was hilarious in Observe & Report, probably the least sympathetic character she’s ever played. But it has to be, you know, funny on some level. Not just the same old “man, women are a drag unless their boobs are out” BS. Forget sexist; that shit just isn’t funny.
    3.) You know, the male characters aren’t really so interesting, either. The ZG character is pretty original and gets like three-quarters of the movie’s laughs. But Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms are basically stuck doing the lamest guy-buddies comedy routine ever: one is laid back and fun-loving and just wants to go with it and live life! The other is uptight and needs to loosen up! Why, it’s almost as if these two friends represent two contrasting points of view! It doesn’t help that Cooper’s character is conceived as such a genuine asshole that he’s not particularly funny; not unfunny because he’s an asshole, but because he’s such a *boring* asshole. Like there’s that sight gag of everyone turning up dressed and ready to hit the town, and ZG is wearing a really doofy T-shirt. Rather than just let that play, Phillips and the screenwriters have Cooper say something like, “you’re actually going out in that?” Oh, good, thanks, otherwise I wouldn’t notice that he’s wearing a t-shirt. Great bit of comic underlining.
    Hey, I’m not saying this movie won’t have good word-of-mouth. People love underlining and obvious characterization and all that. And the movie is amusing enough to generate real affection from people with relatively low standards. I laughed on and off; it wasn’t a total dead zone. But the best Todd Phillips movie is still Starsky & Hutch, mainly because Stiller and Wilson are too funny to interfere with the Phillips frat-boy touch (and he does get some style points; S&H and Hangover are, indeed, uncommonly nice-looking comedies). Few critics are admitting it, but (the admittedly unnecessary and somewhat slapdash) Land of the Lost is funnier and more inventive than this movie.

  41. a_loco says:

    Funny you mention DOA and Crank, Lex. My student group tried to program a double bill of just those two movie, but we couldn’t find a 35 mm print of DOA. If anyone has any leads, hit me up!

  42. Joe Leydon says:

    Speaking of D.O.A. — the original — isn’t that one of the greatest openings of all time? “I want to report a murder.” “Whose murder?” “Mine.”
    BTW: I remember liking the Quaid/Ryan version (the second remake, actually, after Color Me Dead). Didn’t the folks who created Max Headroom have something to do with that? Also, great final line: “Just somebody’s homework, is all.”

  43. christian says:

    The best part of the D.O.A. remake was the title credits.

  44. Rothchild says:

    Spoilers:
    Jesse lives in a bizarro world where Starsky and Hutch isn’t terrible and the world is flat. He also doesn’t realize the importance of Bradley Cooper pointing out the satchel (NOT the shirt) because it’s required for the payoff that comes later. You’re not going to remember that accessory unless it’s pointed out because it’s only on screen for thirty seconds.

  45. jesse says:

    Oh, my apologies, Rothchild… I forget what a rich tapestry Phillips was weaving by pointing out the satchel. The kind of intricate storytelling that can only be conveyed with the pitiless efficiency of a hacky joke about a “man-purse” that’s only been repeated about sixty thousand times in the past decade. Bravo.
    Is that anything like the way they point out a receipt from the Bellagio among the initial clues, and then later in the movie, someone tells them they were at the Bellagio and one of them says “we were at the Bellagio?” and that turns out to be the key to everything? Beautifully executed. Just stunning.

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