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
I don’t know about that. Even if the teaser was added two months ago, Disney could have made the decision to change the title 3 weeks after Frog’s release…when it was clear it was going to under-perform. And I haven’t seen any clear-cut denial that the change in title didn’t have something to do with “Frog.” Ed Catmull made a statement that sounds more like an acknowledgement than a denial:
“Some people might assume it’s a fairy tale for girls when it’s not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody.
Did I miss the part you are “not knowing about?”
Or did you get a release that the film was being reconsidered and retitled in December?
Questions of marketability aside, I’m seriously disappointed by the underperformance of The Princess and the Frog, as I was utterly charmed by it. Really hoping it finds its audience on Blu and/or DVD.
No David, have You? Just watch the teaser. It’s an empty 27 second shot, not even a character in the frame, just a slow pan-up, and could have been slapped together in a few days easily. The type of trailer where the logo is the most important thing, and the fact there isn’t one to me shows it was a late-game decision. If this was as detailed as the first Princess and Frog teaser or a typical Pixar teaser, Id agree with you, but this is bare-bones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-EEYLNVsw
I liked Kim’s piece on it and would like to add that the times Disney went after the boy demographic they had tremendous flops like Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Will be watching Princess and the Frog this week and am looking forward to it. For a traditionally animated film in a computerized 3-D world, I thought it did as well as can be expected. And as Kim pointed out, they are going to make even more on the merchandising (and eventual direct to video sequals) than they can hope for in box office.
“Questions of marketability aside, I’m seriously disappointed by the underperformance of The Princess and the Frog, as I was utterly charmed by it.”
MarkVH,
Thing is, in what universe is $222 million global an “underperformance?” Especially when you look at the numbers I included in my column? And I didn’t even include in that list the real “bombs” like “Treasure Planet,” “Atlantis” and “Home on the Range.”
My point is, if Disney is using the numbers for The Princess and the Frog as a justification for revamping Rapunzel to make it more boy-friendly, they are full of shit. The historic numbers just don’t justify it.
And EthanG, good points.
The inflated financial expectations on animation is unfortunate for people like me who love 2D. Kim, you do a great job pointing out that The Princess and the Frog did just fine compared to other Disney 2D animation, which is easily forgotten these days, when we are inundated with 3D animation that does so much better.
I’m still not convinced it’s the 3D format that makes the difference so much as the content within the medium. But with every 3D smash like Ice Age and every 2D flick that doesn’t do just as well, the misconception becomes a little bit truer. People see trailers for 3D animation and recall Pixar; people see trailers for 2D animation and recall the few recent high profile flops. So they see one, avoid the other, and the media stories about how one was really successful and one “disappointing” reinforce the fallacy that 3D animation is somehow “better.” The cycle feeds on itself.
John Lasseter is one of my favorite people ever for reviving 2D animation, but if the experiment doesn’t work, we won’t be seeing more for a long time. Although Princess did fine, perception is everything, and the perception is that the experiment mostly didn’t work.
And the naysayers may have a point, from a business perspective. So what if Princess turned a small profit, if the money used to make it could have been used to make a 3D smash instead? It’s not enough that 2D does well. Studios don’t want to be in the “modest return” business. We won’t see studios seriously interested in backing 2D until 3D stops being such an infallible cash cow.
I don’t see that happening anytime soon. The box office performance of Pixar and DreamWorks Animation (and Ice Age) is currently about as reliably stratospheric as the Disney animation of 1950-1967. They aren’t just a series of independent successes but an institution of pop culture. They won’t go away for a minimum of a full generation.
Not that I want them to. My favorite movies of the last three years have been Pixar movies. But I do miss 2D terribly.
Kim, in what kind of world does a film end up with $323 million worldwide (A Christmas Carol) and the studio sacrifices the entire division and director who came up with the movie?
Since “Frog’s” budget was over $100 million, you have to figure Disney will end up in the red on the movie itself (adding the P&A budget) but turning a profit in ancillaries…totally agree this doesn’t measure up with their bombs, but there was a ton of publicity around Disney’s “Return to Traditional Animation,” so it feels like a failure…
(one thing people forget btw is that “Princess and the Frog’s” effects and backgrounds are nearly all CGI, so this isn’t a traditional animated flick at all really)