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
Avatar is going to pass Titanic in nominal dollars, not real dollars, in the next couple of weeks.
Nominal dollars = expressed in the money of the day
Real dollars = adjusted for inflation
(Not entering the debate about which is better, just clarifying terms.)
Dear John has a better shot than From Paris With Love of knocking off Avatar.
“From Paris with Love” looks like a harder sell than “Taken,” which was a scaled-back “Commando” with a first act of character setup.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if either “Dear John” or “Paris” knocks off “Avatar” on what I think will be a soft Super Bowl weekend. However, I think it could easily slide to fourth place behind “Valentine’s Day,” “Percy Jackson” and “The Wolfman” the following weekend (Feb. 12-14).
“Dear John has a better shot than From Paris With Love of knocking off Avatar.”
Exactly what I was going to say. There’s no way From Paris With Love opens to over $20 million, not with the ridiculousness of Travolta’s appearance (similarly, I’m of the firm belief Edge of Darkness would have opened bigger had Gibson not been saddled with that accent).
Yeah, Dear John is tracking just a tick below 27 Dresses opening numbers. From Paris With Love is skewing younger than Edge Of Darkness, but over all demos it’s behind where EoD was at this point last week.
I’m not sure either has enough to knock off Avatar, but Dear John is the only one with a legitimate chance. Especially because of Super Bowl weekend, which will hurt Avatar (and especially Paris) much more than Dear John. Regardless, the game means Avatar will drop significantly more than 15 percent next weekend.
Won’t the rating make a difference when it comes to From Paris With Love and Taken and their opening weekends? Or is that insignificant?
And Edge of Darkness cost $80 million? Wow. I think it’s going to fall a little short of that here. How’s Mel’s draw overseas these days?
Probably not super-huge in Israel.
Also in “Dear John”‘s favor? It’s actually kinda good.
Mel has almost always done well overseas. I wouldn’t be surprised if EDGE OF DARKNESS does twice as much internationally as its final US gross.
Eric, grow up and move on with your life. You ARE entering the debate because not everybody believes the argument is worth half a shit.
Get over it. You’ll live longer.
Huh? What’s with the animosity? Steve, “real dollars” has an actual definition that is the opposite of how David used it above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value
This is Econ 101 terminology, not value judgments.
Eric, there is a huge difference between the words “value” and the word “dollars”.
On Edge of Darkness, I wonder how people are gonna react when they discover that it’s not Taken Too like it’s been advertised. It plays more like a BBC potboiler with Boston accents, but I don’t know how I see that going over with certain audiences.
Speaking of Taken, didn’t Luc Besson and co. realize that the reason it did so well was the fantastic marketing campaign that went into it? The FPwL trailer that I keep seeing in theatres is kinda awful, although there’s a couple better ones floating around the interwebs.
In FROM PARIS WITH LOVE Travolta looks like Chloe’s goofy British husband Morris on “24.”
Really, that thing’s tracking well???? Believe me, I’m Travolta Superfan #1, I LOVE low-rent action movies, and irregardless of its quality, I’ll be first in line next weekend. But I can’t believe it’s poised to be a big hit… The trailer looks like it’s not even for a REAL MOVIE; What’s with that cheesy US3 “CANTALOOP”-sounding jazz track and non-regulation voiceover. Every time I see that trailer, if it weren’t for Travolta’s presence, I’d think it was for some off-brand cable series on AMC that they’d run as part of the pre-show countdown in between the 3 Doors Down ad.
Also: DEAR JOHN POWER. Fuck, next week is the SUPER BOWL???? Even if I can round up some gal pals from acting class to go see it with me instead of rolling solo to a chick flick, I am going to look like the BIGGEST DOUCHE going to see DEAR JOHN during the Super Bowl.
I sort of like the Saints but don’t have much investment in either team or the game, and hey, apparently it’s gay to see a movie instead of watching football, but somehow I’d rather get a boner to Amanda Seyfried for two hours than watch 40 dudes tackle each other for four.
a_loco, there are indeed differences in those terms but not in the context we’re discussing here. From the linked article:
“In economics, nominal values are the face value of currency over long periods of time (years), whereas real values have been corrected for inflation.”
I said I didn’t want to enter an Avatar debate because it’s tiresome (and I actually agree with David in how it should be scored). But nevertheless, “real dollars” is a specific term meaning the exact opposite of what David meant.
No, Lex, From Paris isn’t tracking well.
My heterosexual, 63-year-old father in Pittsburgh has seen It’s Complicated three times.
Eric is correct:
David’s post should read “nominal” and not “real”.
Nominal is the count of the the current day. Real is adjusted for whatever day’s present value.
Ok, I digress, you were right.
And Lex’s post makes me believe that the crappy FPWL trailer that keeps playing in Toronto isn’t crappy by coincidence. Seriously, even the soud seems garbled in it, and NO ONE laughs at the gags. I have a hard time seeing it hit.
Edge of Darkness: Sorta underperformed, stars macho adopted Aussie in a US remake of a UK TV series.
State of Play: Underperformed, stars macho adopted Aussie in a US remake of a UK TV series.
Hmmm.
oh, meant to type “…stars macho adopted Aussie with past personal problems in a US remake…”
From Paris With Love seems like a straight-to-video DVD that feel off the truck to Blockbuster and rolled into a movie theater by accident.
Travolta’s trajectory of late seems to be “movie I look like crap in” (Pelham 123, FPWL) followed by “crap movie I look like me in” (Old Dogs, Wild Hogs 2).
I agree with the consensus “Dear John” is the favorite since it’s Super Bowl weekend. However…if “Avatar” makes off with the most Oscar nominations on Wednesday (plus coverage of breaking Titanic’s record) it might hold better than expected again.
“Edge of Darkness: Sorta underperformed, stars macho adopted Aussie in a US remake of a UK TV series.
State of Play: Underperformed, stars macho adopted Aussie in a US remake of a UK TV series.
Hmmm.”
So that means, coming soon, a single film remake of the Red Riding Trilogy starring Eric Bana? (Eoes Bana have the requisite past personal problems though? And sorry Leah, but Karl Urban’s a kiwi and therefore disqualified by birth).
KARL!!!!!
(that’s all, really)
Eric Bana has no such problems with his personal life that could affect his image. Sam Worthington has time though.
Who decided that John Travolta and freakin’ Jonathan Rhys Meyers was a combination that people would want to go the cinema to see? Yikes.