MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady – 1039

The only real surprise here – and I mean in a gut check way, not a “the tracking was off” way – is Whip It not finding an audience. I mean… worse than The Invention of Lying… really?
This may well be a case of me being the Searchlight bubble on this. I saw the film in Toronto. I enjoyed it. (Interestingly to me, even Tony Scott’s iffy lead on his review in the NYT ended up pretty much were I am… acknowledging that the movie achieves its goals, even if they are not his faves.) And it seems to me to be a movie that women from 8 to 28 would really, really like… perhaps even the over 28s.
Oh well.
Screen Gems did its normal good job of pushing out genre to its core. Zombieland will open to almost double Shaun of the Dead‘s entire domestic gross, reminding us of Elvis’ Law: A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action Please.
Capitalism: A Love Story opened wider to slightly more than Sicko… on more than double the screens. To be fair, the exclusive shows – on 4 screens instead of Sicko‘s – put $400k more in the bank going into the expansion weekend. The core is there. The sample from this weekend will determine how broadly the film plays. My guess remains a domestic total in the high teens, which is massive for docs, but may well be the weakest Moore performance in the last decade.

Be Sociable, Share!

74 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – 1039”

  1. EthanG says:

    Lionsgate did a nice job with “More than a Game.” The awesome Drake, Kanye, Lil Wayne, Eminem song worked great.
    IFC not a great job with “Afterschool.” Why does IFC even exist at this point???
    “Capitalism” will be perceived as a failure despite ending the weekend among the top 20 docs of all time, and ending its run at least in the top 10.
    Supposedly Toy Story 1 and 2 cost $30 million to re-animate. I don’t think this is enough to justify future 3D reissues, except for maybe “Shrek.” Methinks this whole re-release strategy was Disney hoping to break even and essentially a massive marketing campaign for the Toy Story Blu-Ray, which is coming soon…

  2. marychan says:

    Overture wished that

  3. marychan says:

    By the way, “Zombieland” is released by Columbia Pictures, not Screen Gems.
    Anyway, I think that “The Stepfather” is going to be another good moneymaker for Screen Gems.

  4. indiemarketer says:

    Anyone dare comment on WHIP IT? Hard to knock the industry leader when things are so tough out there, but…
    $1.4-1.6M opening day on its way to $4-6M weekend?
    So un-Searchlight like for a “playable” movie.
    Should be sweet spot for young girl marketing experts over there.
    Maybe Kissing Ellen Page Stein and roller derby just aren’t as popular?
    Bring on Amelia and everyone’s sweetheart Hilary Swank, or just fast forward to Wes animation and awards?

  5. David Poland says:

    The reason for the 3-Ding of the Toy Storys is to set up Toy Story 3 in 3D. And yes, there will be re-releases and Blu-rays that will more than make up for the out of pocket costs.
    Sorry, Mary… my mistake. Marketing-wise, same diff these days. The former leadership of SG still leads Columbia marketing.
    Ironically, a similar blur is going on at Fox, where films are sliding between big Fox and Searchlight more than in the past.
    I think Whip It needed a bit more time to come together… even with EP, there is a Napoleon Dynamite need to build.

  6. martin says:

    The only Whip It media noise I saw was coming out of its recent festival play. Good reviews and WOM at a festival is hardly enough action to generate a wide-release opening. I guess they were trying to top off the festival buzz with some modest marketing and get a good opening, but in retrospect holding onto it and giving it a full marketing effort would have probably been a lot more successful. Definitely got lost this weeked. As other have said maybe word of mouth will keep it going for the next few weekends though. Zombieland’s numbers are astonishing to me, never saw that kind of success coming.

  7. marychan says:

    Thank you, David.
    I also get your points about Fox. By the way, I also got confused about the release of POST GRAD; Big Fox’s logo was shown at the eariler part of this film’s trailer, but Fox Searchlight’s logo was shown at the end of the trailer. On the other hand, Fox Searchlight established POST GRAD’s website, but this film’s tv spots only showed Big Fox’s logo! So I just don’t know what happen…..

  8. Alas, Whip It really is the That Thing You Do of 2009 (incredibly entertaining directorial debut of a popular actor that successfully sneaks but still inexplicably flops). I wrote this on my blog, and maybe I’m speaking more from anger than logic (I really was rooting for the movie to break out this weekend), but if women moviegoers at large cannot bother to support a purely mainstream and commercial entertainment that is also a good, genuinely feminist movie, then they deserve to have nothing aimed at them except more variations of Jennifer Aniston or Katherine Heigl starring in “I’m Nothing Without A Man”. To be fair, this is the same as parents complaining about quality family movies and then ignoring The Iron Giant. It’s the same as horror nerds complaining about remakes and reboots, yet ignoring Drag Me To Hell and Jennifer’s Body. You want to enjoy the trash, fine. Goodness knows I’ll be there for the A Nightmare On Elm Street remake on opening weekend despite my better judgment. And I’m more than willing to sit through G-Force or Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 if my daughter will enjoy them. But when you ignore the commercial, mainstream entertainment from a given genre that is actually good or original, then you signal to execs that their laziness is actually a preferred strategy.
    I acknowledge the hypocrisy (I haven’t seen JB yet and I’m waiting till next weekend for Zombieland so the spouse can see it too), but this really annoys me for some reason. Maybe it’s just that certain pundits/feminist scholars are so quick to find the sexism at work in any mainstream male-targeted motion picture (such as The Hangover), then sit on their hands when a really good female-driven pop entertainment skates their way. Am I wrong to be this annoyed?

  9. djk813 says:

    IFC is a VOD company mainly that can at the very least do a token theatrical release at the IFC Center, and occasionally has a “breakout” theatrical hit that can gross in the $1M – $3M range. But they are mainly buying for the VOD service, and they are picking up films that might not see any kind of release without them. They get them cheap, and don’t spend much on marketing, and while they don’t usually release the VOD figures IFC has said that I Hate Valentine’s Day (which grossed $10,000 theatrical) has grossed $1.5M through VOD, and the spend to get that is a lot less than the spend that would have been required to get that theatrically.

  10. Kim Voynar says:

    Scott, excellent points, all — but particularly spot-on with regard to the women’s market. Women bitch and bitch about crap rom-coms or being dragged to blow-’em-up action flicks by their male significant others — where are they supporting this film?
    The trailer for the film is not that great, IMO. Who were they targeting here? My take, in part, is that the marketing was not targeted specifically enough to the female pre-teen/teen market that came out for Juno in droves. My 12YO, who would be all over this film, didn’t even know about it until I told her I want to take her to it this week. I’d have taken her this weekend, if she wasn’t on a Girl Scout camping trip.
    It also could have been marketed more strenuously at the teen boy market by angling more the “tough chicks on skates are hot” factor. I don’t know about elsewhere, but here in Seattle the Rat City Rollergirls have a lot of teen boy fans who get off on the sexy-but-tough chick rollerderby vibe.

  11. Krazy Eyes says:

    Anyone know the numbers for Paranormal Activity? This continues to get an extremely limited roll-out but supposedly nearly all the showings were sold out last night.

  12. The Big Perm says:

    I’ve hardly seen any kind of promotions for Whip It…maybe people don’t really know about it?
    And Scott, I do think it’s kind of weird that you’re THAT annoyed. Lots of good movies do well because they hit just the right spot and time, some do poorly for whaetevr reason. Bad movies fail or succeed. The general moviegoer isn’t seeing a movie to make a political point about what they want to support, they just see what looks intersting. Looks like a quality horror comedy is going to make the top spot this weekend, it doesn’t mean anything.
    I’d think all of the horror nerds did see Drag Me to Hell, like they saw Grindhouse. Problem is, no one else did.

  13. Cadavra says:

    Part of ZOMBIELAND’s success could be that it is in fact Columbia and not Screen Gems, which indicates that it’s rather more mainstream than the standard SG crud.

  14. LexG says:

    Heh, according to the LUNATIC “Hollywood hates our traditional values” website Big Hollywood, “Invention of Lying” tanked because it’s “anti-Christian.”
    Funny, I’d argue that it tanked because no one in America knew what the hell it was, much less what it was about, or they thought it was an upcoming 30-minute HBO sitcom on Sunday nights instead of a feature film.
    Mendelson and Voynar FTW re: GOOD “chick flicks” and women not supporting them. Every two months EW runs their stupid WHERE ARE ALL THE SMART FILMS FOR WOMEN, WE’RE 50% OF THE POPULATION DAMMIT! article (invariably with Winslet on the cover)… then when a perfectly decent, fun, non-insulting, and, in this case, *accessible-to-4-quadrants* female-centered flick comes down the pike.
    Well, I’ve said it before and it sounds vaguely (if affectionately) sexist, but, really? If we’re being HONEST, *most women* (generalizations being GENERALLY true) have pretty terrible taste in movies.
    I’m not talking about smart film-world women, and often some of my favorite film critics are female.
    I’m talking your garden-variety, corn-fed, Midwestern, working-as-office-temp in the Valley, still got the Minnesota plates on the sensible car, listens to 80s Rewind at Noon and loves karaoke and REALLY LOVES John Krasinski type chick, with the Kelly Kapoor personality–
    Wait, even THAT chick would normally want to see a new Drew Barrymore flick. Yeah, what DID go wrong?

  15. The Big Perm says:

    Plus Cadavra, the marketing was good and it has Woody Harrelson in it…whereas Drag Me To Hell looked silly (but not funny, there’s a difference) and had no one anyone had heard of in it.
    Which isn’t to say anything negative about Drag Me To Hell…I liked it. But if it weren’t Sam Raimi, based on the trailers, I would have waited for DVD.

  16. The Big Perm says:

    Maybe Zombieland killed Whip It…imagine a guy and a girl are going on a date. No way in fuck the guy wants to see Whip It. So they go to Zombieland, because hey, it’s a fun comedy and the girl figures she can enjoy that too.
    In fact, in a few minutes I’m heading out to see Zombieland with three chicks, but if I weren’t taking them to see this I doubt they’d go on their own.

  17. That’s the thing Lex, this wasn’t The Stoning of Soraya M. This was a mainstream crowd-pleaser that happened to be about women being women. When stuff like this flops, it really gives no incentive for studios to TRY to make better movies or movies outside the ‘safety box’.

  18. Joe Leydon says:

    This is apropos of nothing but: For the first time I can remember, there are two different Bollywood movies — What’s Your Raashee? and Wake Up Sid — playing at mainstream megaplexes here in Houston. Is this happening elsewhere? Is the market for this genre expanding in the US?

  19. Wrecktum says:

    What’s with all the hand wringing about Whip It? It’s obvious why this movie didn’t sell. No one cares about roller derby, so a movie sold as a roller derby movie is not going to do well.
    There’s a reason studios don’t make movies about this minor subculture pseudo-sport. Because they know no one will go see them.

  20. leahnz says:

    wait on, you all might have an argument against female movie-goers IF ‘whip-it’ had been as heavily promoted to the regular non-movie obsessed, general public female movie-going audience as fare such a ‘the ugly truth’ and THEN tanked, then you might have an argument.
    but there-in lies the rub. while tv ads and other promotion for ‘the ugly truth’ was everywhere you looked before its release, i doubt the general movie-going public has even heard to ‘whip it’. perhaps you should save your ire for the marketing/pulbicity machine, which in effect chooses which ‘chick’ films to heavily promote, and which to toss out there in the storm without so much as a life jacket. the general public tend not to go to movies they have never heard of and know nothing about

  21. leahnz says:

    sorry for typos/grammar, i need to slow down and smell the roses (or at least proofread)

  22. Kelby says:

    Big Perm: totally agree. Going to the movies is not an individual decision but a social one, unless its a niche film then it might get lonely geeks out of their basements.
    Whip it- no guys can walk in that film without feeling castrated. On the other hand, guys would agree to see The Proposal, Julie & Julia or The Ugly Truth.

  23. EthanG says:

    “There’s a reason studios don’t make movies about this minor subculture pseudo-sport. Because they know no one will go see them.”
    Mostly yeah. But then again, “Blades of Glory” made $115 million, while Ferrell’s basketball movie flopped. Couldn’t this movie have made a 5th of that??
    I liked “Invention of Lying” and wouldn’t call it a flop LexG. It’ll do nearly $8 million over the weekend, while playing in not that many theatres…60% more than “Ghost Town.” It was cheap to make and will eventually turn a profit.
    I liked the movie. Weirdest cameos of the year (outside of Zombieland) as EDWARD NORTON and PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN turn up for about 3 minutes apiece. I agree with critics though who say the movie should have gone further. It could have been a minor classic if it had pushed the envelope in the 2nd half instead of easing the foot off the gas pedal for a traditional Hollywood ending.

  24. leahnz says:

    “Whip it- no guys can walk in that film without feeling castrated”
    sorry, what? that’s fucked up. do women go into male-dominated movies (which is most of them) feeling their very womanhood is at steak? please. get over youself

  25. leahnz says:

    sigh. i should just type gibberish from now on

  26. leahnz says:

    and just to complete the dreaded ‘threepeat’:
    quite a few of the men who post here, who are plenty man enough, have already commented on how much they enjoyed ‘whip it’.
    if you feel your manhood threatened by going to see a flick about a bunch of chicks in short skirts doing roller derby, perhaps the issue isn’t that the movie is emasculating, but lies instead in insecurity in your own masculinity

  27. Rob says:

    I loved Whip It. It’s sincere and big-hearted, and the cast is a dream. I actually teared up during the big fight scene between Page and Harden. Barrymore cuts no corners here -she knows that even when people follow their dreams, the results are complicated and compromised.
    And the infrastructure of Hollywood exists so that movies with nuance, or soul, or that bear the imprint of being made by an actual human being with a point of view, fail.
    And the girl tweeners who flocked to Hannah Montana and probably went to see The Ugly Truth with their moms would love this film. And they’ll probably never know what they’ve missed.

  28. leahnz says:

    well, rob, you mustn’t be a real man then. was castration painful? (please note the use of dripping, seething sarcasm to veil my true sentiment, which is ‘yay rob’)

  29. Me says:

    Sorry, I’m a guy and I don’t see the guy castration thing with this movie either. The Ugly Truth, anything with Kate Hudson, and Meryl Streep movies I can see guys having a problem with (and I keep telling my wife no to). A movie sold as a roller derby girl comedy, not so much.
    I have a feeling that this is a movie girls are going to find on DVD, a la Ever After.

  30. Wrecktum says:

    “Mostly yeah. But then again, “Blades of Glory” made $115 million, while Ferrell’s basketball movie flopped. Couldn’t this movie have made a 5th of that??”
    I don’t think anyone in his or her right mind would think Whip It and Blades of Glory are good comparisons.

  31. EthanG says:

    Haha I’m not comparing the two at all. I’m just saying it’s more about the marketing than the sport. An ice skating comedy did more money than soccer and basketball comedies using the same actor.
    A better comparison would be “ATL.” ATL was a film about ROLLER DISCO, certainly a more niche sport than roller derby, and starred rappers T.I. and Big Boi from Outkast. The film opened with 11.5 million en route to 22 mil.
    “Stick It,” a gymnastics-centric comedy headlined by Vanessa Lengies (who?) opened to 11 million en route to 25 million.
    “Ice Princess” starring Hayden Panettiere as an ice-skater, made off with $25 million.
    There was a huge audience for “Blue Crush,” which seems funny following the recent “girls hate Megan Fox so Jen’s Body bombed” conversation had here at MCN. There was big money to be had for a broad comedy about ping pong during one of the weakest weekends of the year….
    bottom line Searchlight messed this one up. And one has to wonder what the hell they’re thinking, sending “Amelia” wide in a few weeks.

  32. tfresca says:

    I can’t recall seeing one ad for Whip It on television in the last week. They basically didn’t sell this movie. There are other issues here too: Just seeing how this thing was released I bet it was backed by a former regime at Fox and the only reason they didn’t dump it completely was to keep a relationship with Drew in case she gets hot again. Also nobody under 30 outside of Austin,TX even knows what roller derby is. The audience for this movie wasn’t clear

  33. LexG says:

    “Vanessa Lengies (who?)”
    This should answer your question:
    Also, Blue Crush wasn’t a hit, was it? It’s on a constant loop at Casa Lex and it rules, but I don’t think it was a hit (at all.)
    Also: JULIETTE LEWIS POWER. Chick rules. Is she single?

  34. EthanG says:

    “Blue Crush” raked in $40 million domestic, $50 million worldwide. For a surfing movie with hot chicks that’s a BONER-fied HIT on its budget. (FUNNY JOKE).

  35. LexG says:

    Ha! Touche… And a 14 mil opening weekend? I didn’t remember that AT ALL.
    Ah, how I miss the old, sunny, natural, pre-phony accent, pre-whatever Kate Bosworth.

  36. martin says:

    Blue Crush was marketed big time from what I recall, so I don’t think its numbers were particularly impressive. It opened around the 10 range and finished around 40. Not terrible numbers, but average, certainly not a huge hit.
    Juliette Lewis’ hotness is underrated IMO, no idea who Vanessa Leggings is though. And I agree with the above, Whip It felt kind of like a dump, though maybe it wasn’t. It just seems like it could have worked better if they tried a small 500 screen locally marketed release for WOM then went big a week or two later.

  37. LexG says:

    Vanessa Lengies you should ALL know as playing the jailbait hostess who Reynolds hits on in WAITING…, one of the best movies ever made. (Dane Cook AND Ryan Reynolds AND Anna Faris = COMIC GOLD.) She was also the second banana in that Brittany Snow TV show about the American Bandstand that was on NBC.
    She was NOT, however, the female lead in STICK IT (Missy Peregrym was). I was going to delight you with about 20 variations on “More like ….IT” jokes, but I assume you get the idea.

  38. LYT says:

    I want to see Whip It…I just don’t want to pay for it.

  39. jennab says:

    I took ten 13YOs to see Zombieland (Kim, does your daughter make you sit minimum 3 rows ahead if there are boyz), the 4 girls had never heard of Whip It…and, honestly, they were what, 9 when Juno came out, so Ellen Paige means nothing to them…they’re not even that into Drew.
    I DUG Zombieland, it reminded me of American Pie, funnier, smarter and sweeter than I would have thought, with a KILLER cameo and fun soundtrack. And nicely shot, I thought.
    As I have mentioned many times before, this one was superbly marketed, great trailer…I am NOT a fan of horror (Drag Me to Hell looked too scary for me) and even I was up for Z-land. Will still try & make it to Whip It this week or next; yeah, it was not inescapable as was Julie & Julia.

  40. martin says:

    LYT, you mean with castration?

  41. indiemarketer says:

    tfresca – where do you live and what do you watch?!
    Searchlight was all over the place with TV…
    Project Runway
    America’s Next Top Model
    The Office
    Lots more Prime
    Late Night Talk Shows
    Morning shows
    Ellen and other female talk shows
    All over The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for weeks
    Every young skewing female cable network
    They were not shy about spending to support the wide 1720 screen opening…just totally missed the mark with the marketing of this one…and the making of it

  42. jennab says:

    As per people’s comments, Whip It kinda sounds like Roll Bounce, which I LOVED! I have it on DVD, and would watch it every weekend if it were on, like, TNT. Perhaps Whip It will sprout the same “long tail”…can’t put so much emphasis on opening weekend, esp for niche pics…and, yes. I do believe roller derby made it niche.

  43. LexG says:

    Andrew Wilson needs to be the new Kurt Russell.

  44. LexG says:

    Oh, and also: If you support WHIP IT! you are casting a vote for MORE DANIEL STERN in movies.
    J.A.F.O. POWER.

  45. Wrecktum says:

    ATL is an urban hip-hop film.
    Stick It and Ice Princess (starring Michelle Trachtenberg, by the way) were both big studio product (both released by Disney) and were programmed for young teen girls about sports that are actually popular. As opposed to a minor subculture pseudo-sport that no one cares about, at least not enough people who buy tickets to movies.

  46. EthanG says:

    Ok…big studio product or not…Searchlight led “Secret Life of Bees” to nearly $40 million around this time last year. They turned “Slumdog” into the highest grossing Best Pic winner in 5 years, and made “Juno” the highest grossing indie since My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Specialty studio/niche fare or not, this is an inexcusable opening and a failure of marketing.
    Yeah A.T.L. had a hip hop theme. But it was a movie about ROLLER DISCO. Why did it do better than “In the Mix,” “Get Rich or Die Tryin’,” “Waist Deep” or “Idlewild” despite having a more niche appeal on the surface?
    This is a Drew Barrymore flick that’s going to open less than RIDING IN CARS WITH BOYS or BAD GIRLS. This is an Ellen Page flick opening with barely more than SMART PEOPLE.

  47. Wrecktum says:

    It’s not a Drew romantic comedy, which is what people want to see her in.
    Ellen Page does not get butts in seats.
    By the way, have you ever seen the trailer for ATL? The movie was sold like Boyz in the Hood 2. Roller disco wasn’t even mentioned. But even if was, it still isn’t the same thing as roller derby, which is a minor subculture pseudo-sport that no one cares about.

  48. leahnz says:

    “As opposed to a minor subculture pseudo-sport that no one cares about, at least not enough people who buy tickets to movies”
    wreck, that argument doesn’t necessarily hold water. weird, minor sports flicks can still bring it if marketed properly: ‘dodgeball’ is about dodgeball. ‘cool runnings’ is about the freakin’ luge. ‘blackball’ is about bloody lawn bowls (ok, nobody will have even seen that but i couldn’t resist sticking that in there)
    but then again, all those movies are about blokes, so no danger of tiny guillotines in the theatre lobby there

  49. EthanG says:

    Yeah, I’m a huge T.I. fan (my favorite rapper) so I’ve seen the trailer and the movie believe it or not. And there’s more than one trailer….there’s no way people went into that not knowing what it was about. Movies sold as “Boyz in the Hood” are a dime a dozen, and most fail. Everything Antoine Fuqua does anymore for instance.
    If this was such a niche film, why would the studio choose it for its widest release since “Street Kings,” a year and a half ago. That makes zero sense.
    Why the success for “Secret Life of Bees” this time last year? An Afro-centric historical piece starring Dakota Fanning is going to make more than twice as much as “Whip It” because roller derby is a niche sport…..riiighht.

  50. LexG says:

    “Everything Antoine Fuqua does anymore for instance.”
    Shooter, Tears of the Sun, a jazz documentary? His next thing is that Brooklyn cop movie with Snipes and co., but if anything that’s going back to the Training Day well, but otherwise I think you mean someone else?
    IN THE MIX = CHRIQUI POWER. I’d like to be in HER mix, if you know what I mean.
    I’ll give her a mix if you know what I mean.

  51. EthanG says:

    That was mostly a joke, though Brooklyn’s Finest and Pablo Escobar (the Hispanic version of previously cited films) were what I was thinking of, along with his consultation in “Harsh Times.”

  52. IOIOIOI says:

    1) ATL is nowhere close to being as good as Roll Bounce. If we are going to reference urban roller rink movies. We are going to have to bring up Roll Bounce damn it!
    2) I love Whip It. I could give a shit about it’s cash or anything else. If you come anywhere near to feeling like Blister. This movie will always play to you.
    3) Not everyone feels this way, and you cannot exactly market it. Especially when you have people responding to the trailer like this:
    4) So they could not find their target audience, they decided to try to sell to alternative girls, and forgot about all the other girls out there.
    5) Which means the audience for this movie will not see this movie until after theatrical.
    6) It’s hard to succeed. When you have no idea how to do so. So Whip It will make some money, but more people will see it later. Welcome to the 21st century, folks! Stay Tuned.

  53. tfresca says:

    I live in Texas and I don’t watch the office or late night talk shows. I did see Drew on the Today show for about 10 seconds but I was going to work and whatever she was doing did register. I don’t think the Today show is a great place to reach the target audience of that film. Strangely enough I do remember an incident on the Today show this weeks where two dogs began fucking on camera during an adopt a pet segment. Classic television.

  54. Nicol D says:

    1. Jennifer’s Body is very underrated. Not perfect and has plot holes you could drive a truck through but succeeds in having a real knowledge of small town USA/Canada whateveristan. Fox is sexy as she is supposed to be and Cody’s dialogue is good. Perhaps it was pitched at the wrong audience. When I saw it, the theatre was filled with 7 55 + year old single, white men. Just sayin’.
    2. Whip It looks like fun. But the roller derby is not a general audience subject matter. Didn’t Rachel Welch flop with this in the 70’s? Also looks like it takes place in Bizarro World. In the trailer the girl who wins the pageant says she wants to have dinner with Jesus! Uhhhh…didn’t the Christian girl in a recent beauty pageant in America get trashed by everyone for saying she was Christian and get stripped of her crown? The average human being has as much in common with the average life/woman hating “feminist” as they do with a cheese grater. Earth to Hollywood: this sort of movie does not appeal to women or young girls…it appeals to submissive middle aged men who want to see hot young actresses like Barrymore or Page in dominant situations and tight clothes. That’s the truth. They got they audience they deserved based on the marketing. And Leahnz will release her hate and bile on me in 3, 2, 1…
    3. Gervais’ film flopped. He is actually a comedy genius and I love Extras! But he is not a romantic lead and is a coward for (based on many reviews) making a film that is anti-Christian but does not touch on Islam or Judaism or Buddhism. Had the film been honest in its advertising and been written to take on all comers it could have appealed to the South Park crowd and gotten Gervais fans like me. Instead both the advertising and the film are cowardly and it got what it deserved.
    4. Michael Moore. Heh heh. I think we can all agree when the multi millionaire said capitalism did nothing for him even the left laughed. In Toronto, even the hard-left, lefty lefty socialist undergrad all white kids with fresh scrubbed faces arts rag called Now gave it a bad review. He is done. Good.

  55. IOIOIOI says:

    1) Castrated from Whip It? I have a Whip It poster up on my wall right now. Does this mean I have lost my dick? Hold on. I am going to go check.
    (Checks his dick)
    Yep. It’s still there. That’s one whacky ass comment.
    2) Lex you have a point about most female tastes, but you miss the more overriding theme. Girls have different ways of experiencing films than most boys. When they have an opportunity to see films growing up likes boys do. They usually have pretty exceptional taste. If they get force fed that bullshit most of their lives. They are going to enjoy the bullshit because they do not know any matter. So there’s more to it man, and you really have no idea about the middle of the country. Stop acting as if you do.
    3) Scott: you have a reason to be angry.
    4) I want Stella Boy to state that I indeed was right about Zombieland. Come on Stella! Give a brother his dap!
    5) Jeff: why did you not get around to seeing Zombieland this weekend?

  56. EthanG says:

    “Didn’t Rachel Welch flop with this in the 70’s?”
    This is one of those movie there is NO box office data for…just like most of Welch’s flicks. Still Im willing to bet it murdered “Whip It” adjusted for inflation…it got a Golden Globe nom!;)
    “Gervais’ film flopped. He is actually a comedy genius and I love Extras! But he is not a romantic lead and is a coward for (based on many reviews) making a film that is anti-Christian but does not touch on Islam or Judaism or Buddhism.”
    Are you nuts? The flick is anti-religion and does not reference Christianity number 1..if you want to make a religion case it’s more anti-Judaism than anything. Number 2, its opening to more than 50% more than “Ghost Town.” What’s the religious reason for that movie’s opening? Also, if Gervais is right in saying the film cost around the same as his previous it’s headed for $40 million worldwide, which on its budget is a profit-maker by the time it hits the home market.
    “Michael Moore. Heh heh. I think we can all agree when the multi millionaire said capitalism did nothing for him even the left laughed.”
    I wonder what the top documentaries of the decade will be once this year ends?
    10. Mad Hot Ballroom
    9. Supersize Me
    8. Winged Migration
    7. Capitalism: A Love Story
    6. Bowling for Columbine
    5. An Inconvient Truth
    4. Sicko
    3. Earth
    2. March of the Penguins
    1. Fahrenheit 9/11
    Yeah stick a fork in Moore. Left leaning documentaries are as passe as right-wing radio.

  57. christian says:

    “The average human being has as much in common with the average life/woman hating “feminist” as they do with a cheese grater.”
    You could just use the phrase “feminazi” like Lex. Easier to spot another average Dittohead.

  58. berg says:

    1. man on wire

  59. LexG says:

    Lex = NOT a dittohead. But gotta give it to Rush, “feminazi” is one of the greatest words ever created.
    Thing about Nicol, like SO MANY Republicans, I want to agree with him on SO MUCH shit, but then he has to play that obnoxious religion card, and the “Hollywood Hates America” card*, and be so one-sided about everything… There is a lot of practical, American, common-sense, capitalist middle-of-the-road folksy practicality to consevative ideology… but then they sully it with all that goddamn hyper-religiosity (is that a word?) and paranoia and bullydom.
    *Garofolo, who I’m sure Nicol D LOVES, was on Maher last night, and actually made a point I’ve been SCREAMING FOR THE RAFTERS ABOUT for YEARS; Which is, there ISN’T some nefarious, unilateral, one-minded Leftist Socialist Conspiracy by Hollywood to THWART YOUR TRADITIONAL AMERICAN JESUS-AND-APPLE PIE VALUES. Most people I know, I’d wager MOST PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS, even some of the outspoken liberal types, JUST WANT TO MAKE MOVIES and DO THEIR JOB and make money. SO annoying how the Nicols (who I generally like and often agree with) and Breitbarts and Medveds have to act like it’s AN ASSAULT ON VALUES and read this CONSPIRACY into EVERYTHING they see.
    It’s like that Bill Maher line: “People who RUN EVERYTHING can’t complain that they’re underdogs.” JESUS CHRIST, you religious conservatives MAKE UP 93% OF THE GODDAMN COUNTRY. Can you (Nicol, Breitbart, Medved, Big Hollywood, Hannity) stop acting like a SHITTY MICHAEL MOORE DOCUMENTARY or a Ricky Gervais comedy is going to UNDERMINE THE TENETS OF YOUR EXISTENCE????

  60. jeffmcm says:

    “didn’t the Christian girl in a recent beauty pageant in America get trashed by everyone for saying she was Christian and get stripped of her crown?”
    No, she got trashed because she was an amazing idiot. You can be an intelligent Christian, but this girl was not such a thing.

  61. LexG says:

    I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t add that while what jeff said might be true, Prejean is SMOOOOOOOKING hot by usually-cheesy beauty pageant standards, and regardless of any political differences I’d have with her, ALL that shit would go out the window and I’d be ALL OVER that shit in an instant. Just like half the chickz on Fox News, almost all of whom give me major wood. Hey, MSNBC, take some fucking notes with your Maddow ass.

  62. LYT says:

    “is a coward for (based on many reviews) making a film that is anti-Christian but does not touch on Islam or Judaism or Buddhism.”
    Nicol, the movie says that religion is a lie. ALL RELIGION. It isn’t specifically anti-Jesus.
    But if you want to get technical, it also says that lying is a hereditary genetic trait, and that isn’t true either. Yet you don’t see scientists protesting that it’s anti-science.

  63. Kelby says:

    – “Maybe roller derby just aren’t as popular?”
    – “No one cares about roller derby, so a movie sold as a roller derby movie is not going to do well.”
    – “A movie sold as a roller derby girl comedy, not so much.”
    – “nobody under 30 outside of Austin,TX even knows what roller derby is.”
    – “I do believe roller derby made it niche.”
    – “a minor subculture pseudo-sport that no one cares about.”
    – “roller derby is not a general audience subject matte”
    Does that mean that nobody will show up to see Twilight 3 with its vampire-roller-derby game?

  64. jeffmcm says:

    “Gervais’ film flopped. He is actually a comedy genius and I love Extras! But he is not a romantic lead and is a coward for (based on many reviews) making a film that is anti-Christian but does not touch on Islam or Judaism or Buddhism.”
    DEAR LORD, you’re awful, Nicol. You’re an incredible prisoner of an absolutist mindset, with zero perspective beyond your own. SUCH A VICTIM!

  65. LexG says:

    This is the part where I want McDouche to post how I’m at least better than Nicol. I was hoping it was coming.
    Hey when does THE RUNAWAYS MOVIE come out? Mullets aside, I am guaranteed to see that at LEAST 45 times in theaters.

  66. jeffmcm says:

    Lex, it’s close. You’re sick, but he’s insane.

  67. LexG says:

    Oh, and again, since Nicol’s INVENTION OF LYING argument is the same thing I saw regurgitated on Big Hollywood, let me add that it’s a little offputting that you (ie, Big Hollywood) are basically complaining that a movie *doesn’t make fun of Jews enough.*
    For the umpteenth billion time for you guys everywhere, it’s called “the return of the repressed.” Look into it. It’s not really opinion, but comedy logic fact, that says oppressed people making fun of the status quo is funny, but MAKING FUN OF MINORITIES is obnoxious and uncomfortable.

  68. jeffmcm says:

    Lex, the problem is, Nicol thinks he is an oppressed minority (white, middle class, religious).

  69. leahnz says:

    “And Leahnz will release her hate and bile on me in 3, 2, 1…”
    you wish, sweetcheeks
    (hey lex, in case your not keeping up with current events, kelby is the one who said earlier that any guy who walks into ‘whip it’ is castrated, so there goes yer mythical boner!)

  70. LexG says:

    Leah, any man walking into (ie, dragged into) WHIP IT! will be probably disarmed and find all resistance broken down; If you’re a dude and have to get dragged to ONE “chick flick,” how could you possibly rather see JULIA CHILDS MUGGING AND BAKING CAKES than ROLLERGIRLS CATFIGHTING IN GREEN OUTFITS?

  71. leahnz says:

    lex, that’s all well and good, but daniel stern will always be rookie officer lymangood to me (i have no idea if that’s how you spell ‘lymangood’ but close enough)

  72. LexG says:

    Seriously, you DON’T KNOW how much you’ve missed Daniel Stern on screen til you see him again. This guy is seriously a NATIONAL TREASURE.

  73. aframe says:

    Joe–to answer your Bollywood question way up there: yeah, there has been a gradually expanding market for Indian popular cinema here. In 2002 a local multiplex went all-Bollywood, and I’ve been a regular patron since then, and over the years I’ve noticed the crowd diversifying a lot. It used to be that I was more often than not the only non-Indian audience member in attendance, but now whenever a major title with a major star or filmmaker involved, it’s not unusual at all to see a lot of non-Indian faces in attendance. Also, having gone to a number of Bollywood star concerts the last few years, the crowds have also diversified at events such as that as well. So, yeah, definite market/audience expansion here, even if only rather gradual and not on the level of the growth it’s gotten in Europe post-Kal Ho Naa Ho.

  74. movieman says:

    bring on Amelia and everyone’s sweetheart Hilary Swank, or just fast forward to Wes animation and awards?
    Considering the deafening lack of “Amelia” buzz–and the almost simultaneous combined flops of “Jennifer’s Body” and “Whip It”–would anyone be surprised if F-S pushed “Amelia” back to 2010?
    Is it too late to announce a late April, “Soloist”-style dump release?

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