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
you’re not wrong, but that’s the way it happens.
10 years ago it was the websites that people were claiming put asses in seats. And it was believed long enough to get ad rates good enough for people to make a living at. even though, you, me, and everyone else with a lick of sense knows that website coverage and/or favorable coverage = box office dollars.
A decade later, we still have no definable metrics. Twitter exposure does not equal box office dollars. Neither does putting THE BEST POTTER YET – Some Guy From A Website.
I would still say that 90% of the moviegoing public make their decisions to see a movie from a) the commercial and b) the trailer in the theater.
I’m in graduate school with several people who are studying social media.
Last I checked there were 25 million users around the world, but studies show only 10 percent of those actually use their account.
That’s 2.5 million people around the world who are actually engaged in twitter. That’s not really a whole lot when you think about it.
Analysis of Twitter coming from the guy that only uses Twitter as a glorified RSS Feed? You’ve got to be kidding me. While I agree that that they hype around the twitter effect is a bit of a stretch, just take a look at some graphs on the traffic growth in twitter. Twitter has an effect on WOM… just not as drastic or as instantaenous as some analysts think.
Alex – ALL communication tools have a long-term effect on word of mouth and eventually box office. People still text. People still call. People still stand around a water cooler or Barista station.
The argument that Twitter has or will replace marketing on movies is, on its face, idiotic. People who go to movies on opening day make movie decisions before opening day.
Until there is a single case where it can seriously be concluded that Twitter or texting or whatever had a real effect on a weekend, it’s bullshit, no matter how many people use Twitter.
Moreover, there is an assumption of what is being Twittered, who is reading it, and what it means that cannot begin to be analyzed seriously… especially as the still immature interactive medium grows to such a degree.
Wide release movie marketing is a targeted sale, directed at specific audiences, spending $25 million – $40 million in the last 2 weeks before a film is released to convince people to buy tickets. I am of the belief that once someone has been sold on a movie, it takes a whole lot to unsell them… bad word of mouth included.
Opening weekend ticket sales are a unique proposition. The majority of opening weekend ticket buyers under 30 are motivated buyers, not passive ones. That’s why Batman & Robin or Transformers 2 or The Ugly Truth cannot be stopped by bad buzz.
Conversely, when people decide “no,” it is hard to get them to convert to “yes,” which is why relentless WOM positivity and a message that the film is more exciting than people expected will not likely lift The Hurt Locker past $15 million domestic.
In the middle are the very rare films, like The Hangover, where they got a good enough sample on opening weekend to get people who were riding the fence to go to the movie. But that also has something to do with the social phenomena of “this movie is popular, so you have to see it.”
Bottom line – Word of Mouth is, indeed, faster than ever, in some part because of Twitter. But not only is it a limited sample, but it is one small part of what drives box office, especially on opening weekend.
Two last things – Do you believe that I need to be an obsessive Twitterer in order to understand how it works?
And do you get that the media jumps all over ANY opportunity to claim a trend EVERY August… Instant Messaging, MySpace, Texting, Facebook, Twitter… all thrown at the wall… none have stuck. Add the hysteria that video games were replacing movies for teen boys, HDTVs were killing ticket sales, etc. Enough… at least until there is ANY real data to work with.
Agreed here: Bottom line – Word of Mouth is, indeed, faster than ever, in some part because of Twitter. But not only is it a limited sample, but it is one small part of what drives box office, especially on opening weekend.
“Two last things – Do you believe that I need to be an obsessive Twitterer in order to understand how it works?”
Obsessive no. However, I’ve never perceived that you see the medium as conversational. I get the same impression from Jeff Wells.
It makes me wonder why you have a twitter account at all? Sure there you have some followers… but they are likely the followers that already read your site, follow your RSS. The successful use of twitter is not as another RSS feed. In your case, Twitter is best used as a medium to have conversations about the content on your site… the conversations spreads to other feeds and spreads your content to new readers that may not know you.
Check out how Anne Thompson uses Twitter (http://twitter.com/akstanwyck). She successfully interacts without going off message.
And, regarding trends in marketing, I’m sure over decades communication fads can be tracked. Some have a long lifespan and others are much shorter. The media will always want to talk about these fads to appear to be hip. Too bad by the time they catch the wave… that fad is deader than pogs on the boardwalk.
G’night boss.
Dave, I think you are interpreting “Twitter effect” too narrowly, meaning only Twitter…there is some speeding up of word of mouth when you combine Twitter, Facebook posts & texting, which is different from trolling the Internet for blogs & reviews a la 5 years ago…most folks get these messages instantly and from mobile devices. How can this not have an impact on movie marketing? And, just because a family flick like UP opens strong…strength of the Pixar brand…doesn’t disprove the theory.
I do think of Twitter as conversational, but in the context of what I do, I don’t think there is a great way to use it for work, other than as a RSS feed.
I have tried making it primary in my work. I don’t know of a single reader who liked that.
So in the end, Alex, how many delivery systems do I need? The only people I have ever watched on Twitter who seem to deliver any kind of significant amount of content are people who are not blogging. It will be interesting, for instance, to see how David Carr’s Twittering evolves when he gets back into Bagger mode.
The other thing is, I have back and forth with readers on Hot Blog. How many conversations can I have at once? I am only one person. And as you know, from reading thb, I like engaging.
Should I really be asking everyone who reads me to read the blog and the twitter and facebook and whatever else? Isn’t that a massive imposition on their time and a sure way to fracture my audience and disconnect?
Also, having had the experience of delivering daily content for over a decade, the value of restraint becomes more and more evident to me, not less and less. Telling readers every thought I have about film and the arts not only would be irritating to them, but I would miss the opportunity to build ideas past the time when I shat them out to the world.
Finally… my biggest Twitter beef is that the feedback system sucks. I would LOVE to run a Twitter response feed on this page, 24/7. As far as I can tell, this cannot be done in an automated way. If that were an option, I would use Twitter quite differently, because indeed, what is interesting about the medium of Tweets is not so much what I add to it, but the people who have something to say.
When I can tap into a different kind of interactivity – without a staff the size of CNN – I will use Twitter differently.
I don’t have the time for Twitter as it seems counter productive and to me falls into the category of ‘chat’ or ‘irc’ or anything else that takes me away from actually doing something.
I do think though DP that Alex gave you a pretty insightful answer that you have not taken onboard.
Your experiment with Twitter was ridiculous. Posting to HB all your twitter comments of the day was supposed to achieve what?
I don’t think you used it properly as you tend to preach from the pulpit and not converse to the minions. That’s why it’s great to see you talk to Superfriends, as we know you love to talk film with others but mostly it’s a one-way street around here.
In the end though you don’t need Twitter, people will refer new people to HB or MCN anyway through Twitter. You spending hours chatting about Basterds to nerds across the world won’t help your bottom line.
JBD… who do you think is “talking to the minions” via Twitter?
This is where I am completely disconnected from the argument. I have seen no examples of real communication between individuals (aside from 3 or 4 answers to questions, usually to friends) on Twitter. Please, make suggestions… since the Anne one was her posting half a dozen Twitter-based entries a week.
Really, I would like to find a use for Twitter that I am not getting. And as I wrote, I would love to give “new people” a voice using the format. But every example in which I see that happening is very, very managed… not an open forum.
Please… really… help me see past this…
And as for the bottom line… again… where is ANYONE – who is not just self-promoting and benefiting that way – adding to their bottom line with Twitter? Examples, please.
Embed a widget like this: http://sivel.net/wordpress/twitter-hash-tag-widget/
Insert the widget in your Friday box office numbers. Have it track a specific hashtag like #fridaynumbers. The widget will bring the conversation to your site and integrate help connect your commenters with your twitter commenters.
I don’t know of any widget like that for Movable Type… but will keep looking.
Personally, I think the effect of Comic-Con and geek sites ARE important, but more in a second-hand way, as opposed to a first-hand way. For instance (to paraphrase a popular shampoo commercial from the 70s), is the surprise success of D9 directly attributable to 30,000 geeks in attendance telling their friends who told their friends and so on? Of course not. But does the empirical fact of good buzz out of Comic-Con influence the potential slant of future coverage from lazier out-of-touch journalists desparately trying to show that they have their finger on the pulse of pop-culture and provide ammunition to bring to their editors when trying to land a story assignment? You betcha.
Basically, It’s the old “taste-maker” argument in marketing. It’s not that the so-called “taste-makers” are, indeed, taste-makers. It’s that the journalists have accepted their status as such and follow along lemming-like. Which of course, has the de-facto effect of ultimately giving the “taste-makers” their so-called influence.
It’s no different, really, than the role the Sunday morning news shows play in framing political debate. I mean, how many people ACTUALLY watch “Meet The Press?” Yet, somehow, one thing strategically placed comment there can influence what the NYT, Wash Post, CNN and the like will be talking about for the next week in the echo chamber.