Friday Estimates by Klady – Alice Takes In More Than The Four Newcomers Combined
Wow. I don’t know whether to feel good for Disney of bad for everyone else.
Start with Green Zone, a movie that never seemed to be selling more than Matt Damon’s big head and a lot of fatigues and military chatter. I saw one or two ads that tried hard to make it seem like a Bourne spin-off. But mostly, pretty quiet until a wave of mostly good – a few virulently bad – reviews and… not much more.
i am sympathetic to the notion that “iraq movies” are still not good box office bait. But it seems to me – having not seen the film, the quality of which is irrelevant to the sell, but which needs to have the elements to sell – that there must have been more here. Maybe if you fear that you’re going to get Duplicity/State of Play opening numbers, you subconsciously will them into existence with the kind of focus you have – or don’t have – on the movie in question. After all, who wants to be disappointed again?
Remember Me, which is a pure “Come See The Vampire Hottie Have Sex” sell, is a good opening by Summit standards. It looks like it will compete to be Summit’s #2 opening for a non-Twilight film, pushing out Push and behind only the mainstream Nic Cage Blue Clues Actioner (Nic’s own category), Knowing. And it will likely outgross the entire domestic take of The Hurt Locker by next weekend. Mostly what it will do, as all studios must, is keep their franchise boy happy that the studio made an effort on his behalf.
For me, the big unhappy surprise of the weekend is She’s Out Of My League, a movie that seems to be universally well liked, but has no familiar names – we’ll see how Disney hides Jay Baruchel as The Sorcerer’s Apprentice behind Nic Cage this summer and Mike vogel’s alleged Captain America shot didn’t get any help this weekend – and a genre that is the odd one that always seems like it is going to do better than it does.
The last big example of a wannabe Risky film was The Girl Next Door, opening to $6m in 2004… which is about the equivalent of this opening in 2010. That film featured Elisha Cuthbert at the height of her hottieness and Emile Hirsch, whose star was still rising. Here, you have the spectacular-indeed Alice Eve and JB, who has a cult following and not even so much as a Jeffrey Jones or a Joey Pants as a known side-story entity.
Alice Eve, it seems, is one of those “thought I wrote about it” moments I sometimes get after doing this for so long. I seem to remember writing a ridiculously lavish comment on her presence in Stoppard’s Rock-n-Roll… something akin to seeing a Jessica Simpson or a pre-surgery Pam Anderson for the first time… but with some acting skills. I didn’t see Starter for Ten, but I was roped into its dinner party at Toronto that year and I remember a pretty girl, but not THAT. She has IT. The question will be whether filmmakers can figure out how to put it on screen. Girls like Ms. Eve always face the real possibility of ending up playing blow-up dolls in Hollywood films, which is, when someone actually does have more than The Body, a shame.
But as for the film itself – again, I am not back on a screening schedule yet and haven’t see the film – it seems that selling “the girl that boys want to sex” is just not a good theatrical business. Kelly Preston in Secret Admirer and Mischief… smoking… but neither film did $10m domestic…. which in 1985 wasn’t as strong as Moving Violations.
And Our Family Wedding is Searchlight’s most recent attempt to go Urban. I just had a surprising moment as I looked at Searchlight’s openings on BO Mojo and sorting the division’s history by opening, none of their big grossers opened wide. But even more interesting, almost all of their biggest openings are black-themed films. Of their Top 12 openers – #12 is $5.7 million – 7 are black-themed. The biggest opening for Searchlight in this group and in the Dependent’s history is Notorious, which opened to $20.5 million. If OFW opens to 7, it will be right in the middle of the pack for Searchlight “urban” openers. If it was Tyler Perry’s Our Family Wedding, it would be a disastrous number. But it’s not. It’s just an attempt to look like a TP film. So, perhaps disappointing, but likely in line with Searchlight’s internal expectations.
Shutter Island passes $100m. Cop Out is Kevin Smith’s biggest grosser ever and is still doing some business. Avatar passed $2.6 billion this last week. And sadly, a minor bump for The Hurt Locker off of its win last Sunday.
This weekend has to be the weekend when the snarking about Universal’s recent failures turns into a major story. If Matt Damon’s statement that “Green Zone” cost $100 million to make is accurate then this opening is disastrous, and next weekend looks like another misfire with “Repo Men.”
Disappointing debut for “Mother.”
I think Paramount did a poor job with She’s Out of My Leage. $9-$10 million is pretty weak and much less than it should have opened with. The plot is an easy sell, a la Forgetting Sarah Marshall or I Love You, Man or Role Models. Jay Baruchel may lack the recognition of Rudd, Segel and Scott, but I saw no advertising whatsoever for League outside of some billboards. I never saw a single TV spot. I recall being inundated with ads for the previously mentioned examples. I don’t know. I’m not marketing guru but I think the studio botched it.
“Remember Me” proves that Robert Pattinson can open a film and he is a legitimate film star now. (“Remember Me” is a low-cost film, so its opening is respectful)
BTW, “Remember Me” only opens in 2212 theaters (not 2956 theaters)
http://www.thewrap.com/article/box-office-preview-15184?page=2
“Brooklyn’s Finest” dropped badly. But the film will still be very profitable for Overture (which acquired the film cheaply)
I’m also disappointed for the opening of “Mother”.
Yeah Paramount did kind of botch it…the film was probably pretty cheap and there hasn’t been a male oriented romantic/sex comedy since last October so they could have turned a nice profit.
“Remember Me” did okay but I don’t think it proves Pattinson’s anymore of a name than Kristen Bell.
Stella’s Boy, your statement that you saw no TV spots for LEAGUE forces me to ask: Do you own a television? Been inundated with them for about ten days now. It just looks horrible, hence the B.O.
Kind of a stupid question. I guess we watch different programs. I saw nothing. I don’t watch MTV though.
Legitimate star because of a $10 million opening in 2,200 theaters? I think that’s overstating it a bit.
“I never saw a single TV spot. I recall being inundated with ads for the previously mentioned examples. I don’t know. I’m not marketing guru but I think the studio botched it.”
I second BurmaShave. The TV ads were ubiquitous in the last couple of days. Like every-other-commercial-break ubiquitous. Made me hate the thing even more.
“‘Remember Me’ proves that Robert Pattinson can open a film and he is a legitimate film star now. (‘Remember Me’ is a low-cost film, so its opening is respectful)”
If it winds up opening to something closer to $10M than $15M, I’d say that this opening was frail and bodes not very well for weeks two, three and beyond.
Oh Stella get bent, of course I must be watching MTV and of course my question wasn’t rhetorically sarcastic at all. Just your contention is very odd based on both what I and now Hallick describe. The ads were everywhere, usually with Weezer’s new and worst single ever.
She’s Out Of My League is “universally well liked”? To me, it’s the worst film of the year so far by a good margin. And it’s only got a 51% score on Rotten Tomatoes
marychan, I believe Len has included the Canadian screens… whose grosses are included even when the screen count is not.
And no, this does not mean Pattinson is a “legitimate film star.” He is still a stunt… just like Taylor Lautner.
And Brooklyn will be profitable for Overture, but not vary profitable. That would require a hold.
It is fascinating how when a studio or its execs are headed down the toilet, the next film(s) invariable do the kind of business that would have made it all ok. Alice is 95% from the last regime… ads and all… and none of them get to celebrate it. And if Prince of Persia and Sorcerer’s Apprentice do well (bottom line), how smart was it to kill everyone off?
(And not to the no-more-hand-drawn comment… about the only person who Rich Ross cannot muscle is John Lassiter, who is stubborn and angry about Princess/Frog not doing as well as hoped. Disney Animation isn’t going away unless Lasseter decides it is. Same with future 2D experiments. And the Rapunzel call was not Rich Ross’ to make. Lasseter controls both Pixar and Disney Animation now… and he is the most untouchable person at the studio.)
Same with Overture and these last two films… right in the planned wheelhouse, but funding is being pulled.
Without Shaye & Lynne’s New Line, WB had a really iffy year last year.
Crazy.
Universal must really loath GREEN ZONE. One, they delayed its opening and two, they dumped its opening. As David says, it has been positioned it as a Bourne spin-off. Yet on watching the film, it is very, very far from that. Admittedly, Greengrass deployed his favored techniques that he has been honing ever since he landed with BLOODY SUNDAY.
But Bourne this is not. Bourne is decisive, he never wavers, Bourne always moves forward, Bourne does not consult, Bourne never reflects. Bourne just DOES. Bourne IS. (And I say all those things as attributes in a trilogy I adore). Bourne is on an existentialist quest to find out how he is… but at least he knows that he does not know.
On the other hand, Ray Miller thinks he knows who he is and what it is he has been charged to do. But over the course of the movie, he becomes uncertain and confused; he dithers, he falls back, he asks for advice and is repeatedly undermined by that advice and his own consideration of it. For a generation of audiences raised on a diet of heroic certainty, this is very hard to digest. GREEN ZONE questions pretty much everything. It’s not all that great overall (it concerns me that perhaps Greengrass does not have much else in his directorial arsenal), but Helgeland’s script offers spots of interest.
However, I doubt it will make that much money (at least not States-side). The reason? Iraq/ Afghanistan pictures do not sell, not because they are bad but simply because the war is not being won. If you win it, they will come.
“It is fascinating how when a studio or its execs are headed down the toilet, the next film(s) invariable do the kind of business that would have made it all ok. Alice is 95% from the last regime… ads and all… and none of them get to celebrate it. And if Prince of Persia and Sorcerer’s Apprentice do well (bottom line), how smart was it to kill everyone off?”
Good point. I’d sure love to know what that film is for Universal though, because I don’t see one.
Good point about Lasseter…I wonder though who is responsible for the Rapunzel title change, as it’s obviously a direct result of Frog’s semi-failure.
Still searching for an “urban” face at Searchlight, or for that matter at any senior significant impact player at any Hollywood studio. Just fulfills their quota and financial statement. Good business to be in, but no passion like their usual MO. Its about the film makers (TP) and not the studio (LGF in this example). At least Fox didn’t try and shove it down our throats during Black History Month and saved it for the more appropriate St. Patrick’s Day season. Does give Lafawnduh from Napoleon Dynamite and Eddie Murphy’s brother paychecks. Better actress or publicist, Anjelah Johnson or Angela Johnson? Shocked that Ugly Betty and Mind of Mencia loyal viewers didn’t put down their remotes and all cram into cars to get to their local multiplex.
I am sorry, but Remember Me numbers are not good, from all the hype, buzz and attention that Pattinson gets, those numbers are very poor. Edward and Bella are the movie stars in that franchise. Pattinson is just another famous actor. Labeouf in my opnion is a much bigger draw, at least his films outside Transformers make some money.
Also, what horrible numbers for Green Zone.
Just saw The Ghost Writer yesterday. All of my group enjoyed and wondered why before I mentioned it, none of them had even heard of it. I see that it’s barely grossed a smidge over $3m. So I have to ask, is Summit’s marketing arm really that incompetent? Granted McGregor and Brosnan can’t exactly open non-franchises, but $3m for TGW? Seems obscene. If one of my movies was on Summit’s upcoming slate, I’d be very worried.
The studio still failed if League ads were plentiful and people thought it looked like shit and stayed away. It shouldn’t be that hard to sell something like this, unless it really is that awful and they had nothing to work with. I haven’t seen it so I have no opinion of its quality, but the concept sure seems like an easy sell to the target audience.
Couple things about this weekend’s releases I’ve been thinking about. I was waiting for a BYOB but it doesn’t appear that there will be one.
First, Remember Me. Spoilers for those who haven’t seen it. I have no plans to see it so I read about the “controversial” ending. Is it really that offensive that it ends in one of the towers on 9/11? I’ve read some reviews that tear it apart for exploiting 9/11. One guy even gives it a 0/10 because of the ending. Romantic movies have been manipulating people for decades. It’s what they do. Is 9/11 still off limits? Or does this movie really exploit it in a totally insensitive and offensive manner? I just think it seems overblown.
Also, Green Zone. Why do so many people equate anti-Iraq war with anti-troops? They are not one and the same. Being critical of Bush and the war does not mean the movie hates the troops. Of course it is easy to bash the war now with the benefit of hindsight, but that is not the same as “hating out troops.” Is the movie really anti-troops or is this just another case of Fox News/The NY Post getting carried away? I read Imperial Life in the Emerald City, and though I know the movie is only loosely based on it, it’s not anti-troops in any way, shape or form.
Whether it was bad marketing or it-looks-awfulling, it worked. “League” sucks and people should stay away.
Maybe the failure of “League” had something to do with the fact that the marketing made Jay Baruchel look like a Vulcan.
Stella’s Boy, Re: Green Zone. I agree with your question as to whether the movie is not anti-troops. Moreover it is as you say “just another case of Fox News/The NY Post getting carried away.” Anything that does not equal their zealotry of rallying around the flag is considered nothing short of treasonous. Just shows how damned insecure they are about themselves and their notions of “patriotism”… and we all know what Samuel Johnson said about that!
@Cris: Take one look at the banner ads. A 20/30-something sees “From the Academy Award Winning director of ‘Rosemary’s Baby’…” and figures WTF is that?
@Stella: The liberal media worship war as much as they love Big Government.
Dave, based on what I heard in few months ago, Overture would be very happy if “Brooklyn’s Finest” could gross more than $20 million in US theatrically. (and the film does so…)
Maybe “She’s Out of My League” failed because it looks like a sad clone of an Apatow movie with even lesser known character actors, and the lead isn’t exactly magnetism incarnate. Alice Eve may well be a find as an actress, but in the ads she just looks like a generic WASP’y blonde who doesn’t exude the kind of MAXIM magazine-style heat the character would seem to require to sell this premise (a la a Megan Fox-type who would genuinely make the guy’s friends go “what the eff?”)
Yeah I didn’t mean to beat a dead horse. I just think, regardless of its quality, it’s the type of Apatow clone that should have been able to snag a $15 million-plus opening weekend. It may have received heavy promotion prior to this weekend but I think the studio failed to properly sell it. Plus I like Baruchel and was hoping it’d do better.
cop out is ‘still doing some business’
kevin smith’s biggest grosser….
that’s a really ‘glass half full’ spin on it, don’t you think?
A friend of mine saw She’s Out Of My League and she thought it was really funny. The tv ads make me want to see it. So uh I’m in the minority.
The POSTERS for She’s Out Of My League are terrible. You’re supposed to have the hot girl front and center, not the guy. Duh. Check out The Girl Next Door poster.
“I never saw a single TV spot. I recall being inundated with ads for the previously mentioned examples. I don’t know. I’m not marketing guru but I think the studio botched it.”
A TV Spot for it just came on while I was reading this. I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I’ve seen quite a few ads for it the past few days. Missed screenings due to kids’ play practices all week, but was considering going to Green Zone tomorrow evening … thinking now maybe I’ll check out She’s Out of My League instead.
Cris, I figure Summit are going the softly-softly route. I’m sure a few people would chuck a stink if they appeared to be trying to use Polanski’s legal issues to get a hit.
It’s early, and I haven’t read the entire comments section, but since when did anyone start comparing ‘Pattison’ and ‘Cage’ as if they’re equals? You love box office numbers Dave, so can we start there, and with ‘NT’, and NT2″ first? Oh, and don’t forget about the “The Rock”, “Con Air”, and “Knowing”. Let’s just remake “Knowing”, with Pattison, and see what happens. ????
“Start with Green Zone, a movie that never seemed to be selling more than Matt Damon’s big head and a lot of fatigues and military chatter. I saw one or two ads that tried hard to make it seem like a Bourne spin-off. But mostly, pretty quiet until a wave of mostly good – a few virulently bad – reviews and… not much more.”
It’s not exactly like that, and you never said if you have actually seen the movie. I don’t get it-you like “The Hurt Locker” (and so do I), but you seem to be enjoying the fact that “TGZ” is failing. Are you trying to be the person that says “I hate movies about the Iraq war, because I don’t like that we invaded Iraq?, but as long as we get the Bigelow vs Cameron matchup for the Oscars, I’ll be happy!!!”. If so, own up…
I don’t even have time for this anymore, and you probably don’t care, but that means you’re losing a reader, and revenue in the process. You’ve called me out more than once with the idea of “Where are you going with this?”, and it’s a fair question. I think the answer is that I’m going in the direction of ‘not caring (about you) anymore’. I used to enjoy the blog/Hot Button, and then it became a realm for insider bitching/talking/fighting. Your whole message to your blog readers in the last year (in my opinion seems to be “If you don’t like what I’m writing, or what I’m saying, and you don’t want to put up with insane read comments, GO AWAY!!!!”. You have every right to do that, because you own the company/blog, but seriously?
You always talk about old media vs. new media, or how Hollywood is different now than it ‘was then’.I’m used to hypos, so let’s do one here-if you think that Nikke Finke is ruining journalism as we all know it (in your industry, and where I would actually agree with the premise), what are you doing right now that would make you shout “Don’t worry, I’m saving it!”. If you can answer that question, I would stop asking it. But until you can say “Here is where I’m taking the high ground while everyone else is not”, then I’ll buy into it.
Jack, your comments would at least make a little more sense if you read the very next paragraph of DP’s original post, where he clearly states he hasn’t seen Green Zone.
Boxofficeguru weekend estimates:
Alice – $62 million
Green Zone – $14.5 million
League – $9.6 million
Remember Me – $8.3 million
Shutter Island – $8.1 million
So Remember Me did almost half of its weekend total on Friday? Looks like Rob P. might not quite be a huge movie star yet.
DP’s right about Lautner and Pattinson for the moment but if his next couple of projects are anything to go by, I think Pattinson has more of a chance in enjoying a semi-decent career in the long run whereas Lautner will have his 15 mins to shine, before sizzling out.
As for the poor BO, I think interest was there originally but after the scathing reviews over its script and the controversy over the ending, even fans i’m hearing were put off.
Isn’t something like Remember Me critic-proof? I mean check out the reviews for Valentine’s Day.
Also, Jack…I don’t see one word in Dave’s write-up that suggests he is happy about GREEN ZONE’S failure.
How are the two comparable?
One is a light, comedic piece of fluff written to coddle peoples romantic sensibilities and the other is widely accused of exploiting a great American tragedy to jerk a few tears out of their audience. Even fangirls may think twice before wanting to sit through that something like that willingly.
How are the two comparable?
One is a light, comedic piece of fluff written to coddle peoples romantic sensibilities and the other is widely accused of exploiting a great American tragedy to jerk a few tears out of their audience. Even fangirls may think twice before wanting to sit through something like that willingly.
oops. Sorry for the double post.
Do “fangirls” read or care about reviews? They’re comparable in that their target audience doesn’t care much about critical consensus.
Rom-drams are a tougher sell than rom-coms obviously unless they have source material (Nicholas Sparks etc) but yeah, I doubt the reviews had anything to do with it because they really never do with these types of movies.
Dear John was bashed but it certainly didn’t hurt its BO. “Autumn in New York” is one of the WORST movies of the last 10 years and it did great. Or how about PS I Love you?
It’s probably not even worth posting but another shining example of EW’s excellence in journalism from the first paragraph of its weekend box office report:
“It
They might not care about consensus but i know people who were planning to see the movie until they heard about the ending and the negativity around it.
In any case it was only made for $16 million so its not really a huge loss for anyone and BO expectations were modest anyway. Just a blow to the ego, maybe. Besides everyone knows that Edward and Bella are the real stars of the Twilight franchise.
Ethan, those romantic dramas didnt have people spitting mad at the script as this movie did. The venomous response from some of the usually more mild-mannered critics is pretty intense. People are really riled up about it.
Jack Walsh – I don’t have the slightest idea what you are on about…
The only context in which I compare Nic Cage and Pattinson is as regards Summit’s releases. And the point of mentioning Knowing is that it is a fact and that, obviously, it’s their biggest non-Twilight project with a major star in the lead. What else do you think I am saying?
I wrote about the selling of Green Zone… not the movie. As someone else pointed out, I have made clear that I have NOT seen the film.
You want to make some big point about me, yet you clearly haven’t been reading anything I’ve written very closely. Including this post. I have been screaming about how DUMB Jim vs Kathryn is as a story for weeks. I have been ripping The Hurt Locker’s box office for 8 months.
Anyway… you’re right. I don’t care if you go. I am happy to engage differences of opinion, but I have no interest in trolls. And either you are confusing what you read here with stuff you read elsewhere, you are intentionally being a troll, or you are a little crazy. Bon voyage.
And if you are just having a bad day, great. Keep it off my blog, if you would.
A conversation I don’t understand but which happens somewhere on the Internet many times every day:
– “If you don’t like this site, why are you reading it?”
– “Fine, I’m leaving.”
– “Fine.”
– “I’m really leaving.”
– “Okay.”
– “I’m REALLY leaving, on account of how much this site SUCKS!”
– “Okay.”
– “I’m really really REALLY REALLY leaving, and the reason I’m leaving is because you are the most obnoxious, delusional, self-important, pompous person I’ve ever known in my life.”
– “Okay.”
– “I mean it.”
– “Okay.”
– “I’m leaving.”
– “Go ahead, then.”
– “Not until you regret it.”
– “I don’t regret it.”
– “I’m not leaving until you’re sorry I’m leaving.”
– “I’m not sorry.”
– “You are so stupid, aren’t you? My leaving will cause you to lose revenue and respect and prove once and for all that you’re the jerk I’ve been saying you are.”
– “It’ll be hard, but I’m sure I’ll find a way to move on…somehow.”
– “I’m really gonna leave.”
– “Uh huh.”
You’re right. There is no point in arguing with you anymore, because you have groupies, and I never will. Thanks for the few years when you had the semi-appearance of being an actual journalist.
Jack: Just for the record, I’m not completely unsympathetic. I don’t think David is a perfect journalist. I put almost no trust at all in his opinion as a critic, for example. And I could sympathize with the opinion that he spends too much time criticizing other journalists.
But come on, your criticisms in this thread are not debatable opinions but demonstrably false. You accuse him of thriving on the Jim vs. Kathryn story, when actually he wrote a dedicated Hot Blog entry about how and why he hated it.
Your accusation that David is enjoying The Green Zone’s financial failure is an unfounded inference on your part (show me where he said anything to support that), and your remark that you don’t know if he’s seen the movie or not when David said “But it seems to me – having not seen the film…” immediately after the part you quoted. Which just proves you’re not reading him closely enough to be critical.
Your apparent refusal to admit you’re wrong on this admittedly small issue just goes to show how you expect things from David that you do not expect from yourself: for criticizers to criticize themselves.
Meanwhile, David gets a lot of flak for the frequency of his “naval-gazing” posts. Not from me. In those posts, he does exactly what you say you want from him: for him to evaluate his own contributions to entertainment journalism for their correctness and value. To hold himself to the same standards he holds others to. He is *constantly* reflecting on his own work and trying to course-correct. Even if you disagree with the conclusions of those posts, do you know of any other journalists that ask themselves those kinds of questions as publicly or as often?
Finally, your parting shot accuses Hot Blog commenters of being “groupies.” Seriously? This is the most vicious, fussy, nitpicky, openly aggressive blog I’ve ever read anywhere. Bar none! Who, exactly, are the groupies? Jeffmcm? Joe Leydon? IO? Some like David more than others, but I’ve never seen anyone here with a groupie mentality. The people here are constantly coiled and ready to pounce on even the smallest opportunity to criticize — even if it means dredging up decade-old wrong Oscar predictions to do it.
Go read the blogs of Roger Ebert or Nikki Finke (and that pretty much covers the entire spectrum of entertainment journalism, doesn’t it?) if you want to read a blog with adoring fans. This one has none.
Jack Walsh whines “but that means you’re losing a reader, and revenue in the process.”
You got him there Jack. DP will have one less cocktail in Bermuda to cover the substaintial loss of your revenue inducing presence.
I of course meant “navel-gazing” in my post above. I wasn’t trying to imply that David has a passion for the hobby of submarine-spotting.
Now that I think about it, though, this blog would be even cooler if he did.
“There is no point in arguing with you anymore, because you have groupies, and I never will.”
Quick, can someone please just be a Jack Walsh groupie or else he’ll disappear forever!
“this blog would be even cooler if he did.”-Sam
GROUPIE!
“Jack Walsh whines “but that means you’re losing a reader, and revenue in the process.” You got him there Jack. DP will have one less cocktail in Bermuda to cover the substaintial loss of your revenue inducing presence. ”
(here is me forgetting to turn off my baby monitor while responding to your arguements…..WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!)
-Hey JBD-I hope you’re actually correct in your thought process, more so than you are in your spelling. And if Dave wants to call other websites out about their revenue, it’s fair game all around. But, can we see numbers (like he demands for BO)?
How is it fair to say “MCN has never lost money on this or that or whatever, and then never give numbers/figures”. The NYTimes files a tax return in a public place. Dave, have you ever done that? Does Finke make money? Does Waxman make money? It’s funny that I don’t actually care if they do, because I don’t know them. But I do care that someone criticizes them all the time without providing any figures.
“”There is no point in arguing with you anymore, because you have groupies, and I never will.” Quick, can someone please just be a Jack Walsh groupie or else he’ll disappear forever!”
-palmtree-Nice joke. But is it going to be funny if everyone stops reading this blog because it becomes (or has become) irrelevant? It probably won’t be funny to Dave. As far as I can tell, Dave has given up on the NYTimes, the LATimes, Variety, and pretty much ever other movie blogger out there. So, basically everyone that makes fun of my comments, whether they’re correct or not, is saying “I’M WITH DAVE!!!!”. Where are you gonna go at that point to make smart-ass remarks? Apparently I should look for you on Gawker in six months (you’re still going to have the same name, right???)
That’s fine, but it’s extremely ironic coming from the people who criticize him constantly. I do it, but I don’t post on this blog and read every single thing that he writes, every single day. I’ll give DP credit for being a good writer-but as far as hosting a blog goes, I’m in the dark. I can come here everyday, and ask ‘?’ to anything, and get dismissed. The LexG’s of the world can come here everyday and get a column. DP-you dismiss me easily-can I get a shot at a column too?
> “So, basically everyone that makes fun of my comments, whether they’re correct or not, is saying “I’M WITH DAVE!!!!”.”
It’s not all black and white like that. In my earlier post, I listed some of my criticisms. But I’ll also happily say that I think David is the best industry analyst out there (or at least of those I’ve discovered). I’ve learned more about how the industry works from David Poland than everybody else put together. I also think he’s the best number cruncher in the business. If that makes me a groupie by your definition, okay, but I think of groupies as being blind and worshipful and never finding fault at all. That’s not me, nor, as far as I can tell, any other commenter here.
The difference with *your* criticisms is that so many of them are based on demonstrably false assertions, such as those in this thread, and furthermore that criticism seems to be all you offer to the conversation. I do think you have legitimate questions and criticisms too, but is it that surprising that they get lost in the noise?
I’m not trying to put you down here. I’m just saying that, by my own reading of your posts (for what little that counts), your criticisms sound more disparaging than constructive. Even when you have a point, you don’t sound like you’re writing because you care about the matter at hand so much as the opportunity to cut David down. Maybe I’m wrong: maybe you do care, or did care, about the discourse here. But it really doesn’t seem like it to me.
Jack I gave you way too much credit, lets just say one less sip of a cocktail. My spelling was incorrect but in my defense, ‘stain’ subconsciously inserted itself into substantial when thinking of you.
In all seriousness you seem to have a real bug up your ass about DP but on a whole other level than the rest of us, who take an odd pot shot. It appears that all this criticism stems from DPs lack of acknowledgment towards your ‘genius’ analysis on ethics and the like. DP mostly ignores you because you’re completely scattered in every stance you make and its very obvious that all this bluster is about you as you desperately want to be the intellectual Lex of the blog. Unfortunately you lack Lex’s humor and the intellect needed to mount a constructive discussion.
You come off very young and needy.
Sam-“Even when you have a point, you don’t sound like you’re writing because you care about the matter at hand so much as the opportunity to cut David down. Maybe I’m wrong: maybe you do care, or did care, about the discourse here. But it really doesn’t seem like it to me.”
You make a good point-I do pick my fights with Dave based on the ‘sake of argument’ thing. But doesn’t he pick his fights based on that as well? I asked him, point blank-are we reading a movie blog, or a media criticism blog? When I started reading Dave, I’m pretty sure it was the former. Are you willing to say it can be both?
Dude, Jack…some of your questions could be solved with a little logic.
“So, basically everyone that makes fun of my comments, whether they’re correct or not, is saying “I’M WITH DAVE!!!!”.”
Do none of your friends ever make fun of what you say or the manner in which you say it?
And what are we “with Dave” on? The same planet, perhaps?
All your arguments boil down to “Dave holds everyone else to a standard so I’m going to hold him to it.” The problem is that it doesn’t make sense. Dave is not trying to do the same thing as those other institutions and he doesn’t hold as much sway as they do outside of film circles. LA Times, NY Times, Variety…those are open game for anyone to criticize freely as they have circulation numbers in the tens of thousands if not millions and journalistic legitimacy in the eyes of the general public.
As for whether Dave’s blog must choose to be a movie blog or a media criticism blog…let’s pull a Jack Walsh and put it back on you. Are all your comments on this blog going to be movie comments or criticizing Dave Poland comments? Can they possibly be both??? Because surely a format as restricting as a blog must never veer from a single topic.
I think the whole correct “OR NOT” part might be the sticking point, Jack. And I’m sure you’re refreshing this page every half hour or so looking for responses, and think of all the gold jewelry and sports cars you’re putting in Dave’s pocket.
PALM-“Do none of your friends ever make fun of what you say or the manner in which you say it? ”
No, they do, but I expect them to back it up, especially if they’re the type that call out everyone else. But I happen to think that ‘joking with my friends’ in person, and calling someone, from your professional platform, ‘out in public’, automatically makes it personal. Everyone in the media is jealous of each other-it’s a reality, and I’m pretty sure it’s not limited to our profession.
All I hear from this blog about my comments is “He’s all over the place when he comments about this blog, so he must be a douchebag”. Welcome to the REAL WORLD, where you have an editor. If anyone has delusions why I’m frustrated with Dave, I’ll tell you why. He gets away with criticizing everyone else who writes about movies, without anyone throwing a stone. In my opinion, it would be really easy to write a column while knowing that everyone on the blog would complain/whine/b**** about each other, and never actually think “Is he correct in his argument?” Do you get this PalmTree? Do you go to your job everyday, and think “I could probably do what my boss does?” If not, then STFU!
What you’re basically saying is that it’s ok to be an a-hole, as long as everyone already knows that you’re that way! Am I an a-hole to DP? Yeah-I’m sure it comes off that way a lot of the time. But most good journalists have to be a-holes. I think he is an a-hole journalist, but I don’t want to listen to a bunch of random people backing him up without justification, and then saying that my responses/questions make no sense.
Everything you say points out the reasons I have problems with this blog. It’s really easy to call people out on things ‘you don’t think they know’. I do that sometimes, and everyone immediately becomes defensive-why do you care so much about Dave? Is there a possibility on this blog, that Dave could wrong about something, where nobody who calls him out on it is accused of being “elitist/a douche/someone who thinks they know more than me/a troll (I was called that, and I didn’t even really know what that is-I had to look it up)”
I guess that I’m a ‘troll’, because I question standards. But it would be nice to know that Dave is sitting at home thinking about my ‘logical’ (maybe not to him, but prove me wrong) arguments as a ‘troll’, more than he seems to be about the random comments from readers that really seem to not care.
It has definitely gotten to the point where coming here and saying “DAVE IS A DOUCHE” earns you more respect than showing up with an idea/thought.
(I see the flaws here, but I really have to go.)
Flaws? Where? Everything you just said made total sense…………………….!
“He gets away with criticizing everyone else who writes about movies, without anyone throwing a stone.”
As I said before in this thread, David gets more stones in the face from his own commenters than any other movie blogger I know. Maybe that’s just because he doesn’t ban people with the reckless abandon that Jeff Wells and Nikki Finke do, but nonetheless, he gets away with nothing.
“are we reading a movie blog, or a media criticism blog? When I started reading Dave, I’m pretty sure it was the former. Are you willing to say it can be both?”
I started reading David somewhere around 1997, possibly a little sooner. The Hot Button had its share of media analysis, and certainly a lot of studio analysis, even then. I would agree, though, that the media analysis has probably gotten heavier in the last few years. But this is probably easy to account for: the simple fact is that the last few years have seen the Internet emerge as a serious competitor to print media, which in turn has caused a great deal of change and turmoil over how entertainment journalism works. Everybody has different ideas about how to “fix” journalism, and those “fixes” are important to discuss. There isn’t just the financial side of things on the line but the quality and integrity of the coverage we get.
The question then arises, is this blog the right place to put that discussion? Personally, I’m with you: I’m much more interested in discussing MOVIES — the art and, to a lesser extent, the business of movies — than how other media outlets cover these things. But that doesn’t mean the coverage isn’t an important and worthwhile topic of discussion, or that David isn’t one of the best people around to do so.
As things stand, I skip the posts I’m not interested in, but as often as not I find that David sparks an interest in subjects that wouldn’t otherwise catch my attention. If they don’t for you, that’s fair. There was a time during the Presidential campaign when I stopped reading this blog, after I’d counted 10 posts in a row about the race and none at all about movies.
But the thing about David is that even when he gets distracted by things that obviously bother him, like politics and sloppy journalism, his passion for movies is what keeps him going. Out of the blue, a great movie will come along and inspire him again. That’s how the movies affect me, and I’ll always have an ear for others that movies impact in the same kind of way.
So… Jack swears he’s never coming back…. but keeps doing so to argue with those who find fault in his reasoning…. by attacking spelling and minor points while ignoring the factual errors he made and others pointed out?
Awesome.
Sam – you’re dialog break down above couldn’t be more spot-on.
PalmTree-here is your argument:
“The problem is that it doesn’t make sense. Dave is not trying to do the same thing as those other institutions and he doesn’t hold as much sway as they do outside of film circles.”
Yes, but he writes a film blog, and he publicly criticizes people in the industry for writing things that he disagrees with. And I do think that he is trying to do what ‘those other institutions’ do_I think the least he would agree with is that he is trying to uphold their standards (whether or not he agrees with said standards all the time, is a different matter).
Are you saying that DP is not a ‘journalist’? If you want to say that, then fine-stick with that. But if you want to say “I’m siding with a blogger who constantly calls out other journalists, for not doing their jobs”, then why aren’t you thinking “Why isn’t Dave writing the Media Column for the NYTIMES?????????”
If he isn’t trying to at least strive for being at that level (according to HIS standards, not mine), then what is he being, and what are you defending? You don’t even know me, and I’m guessing that you don’t know Dave (as I don’t), and you’re defending some sort of ethical standard that doesn’t exist.
“LA Times, NY Times, Variety…those are open game for anyone to criticize freely as they have circulation numbers in the tens of thousands if not millions and journalistic legitimacy in the eyes of the general public.”
DP talks all the time about how Finke’s web numbers are exaggerated, and MCN has consistent numbers, and doesn’t need Oscar money to be supported. I’ve never seen anything to prove that. Have you? Since when did it become ok for DP to call out Finke by saying “the numbers that she is citing are unreliable”, but not cite numbers about his own site when he talks about it? I only use Finke as one example-I don’t visit her website, and I don’t care about numbers. But how can you read this blog and think “DP has ethics”, and not question the motivations. I’m not saying that I dislike him, or mistrust him-I’m just saying “either back up your argument, or stop making it”.
I don’t care if Finke has 2 readers or 2 million, but I care if someone calls out other journalists/PR people for being ‘unethical’ with ???? as an argument.
As a reader of this blog, you obviously don’t trust me, but you trust DP saying “I know from MCN numbers that we don’t lose readers, or we don’t need Oscar ad buys to make money”. Maybe he doesn’t (and I have nothing to back me up saying otherwise), but I don’t get the standard here. So it’s ok to use the excuse “I know what I know, because I’ve been in this business a long time”, and then criticize a person in another business for not knowing ‘what they know’?
Why doesn’t anybody get that? The reason that DP and a lot of people (including me) hate Fox News is that they throw out opinions, and pretend it is fact! I’m the person asking, ‘can you back that up’, and everyone throws stones at me before they even question Dave.
Jack, you’re too focused on the content. Look at the form. By form, I mean, blogging.
The Hot Blog is a blog, not a media institution. Anyone can start one. You can too and write all your rants and see who comes to comment on you.
Here, Dave gets to comment on whatever he feels like. That’s why he’ll even throw in baby pictures. Do the LA Times editors throw in their random baby pictures? Of course not, but the LA Times is not a blog. Does the LA Times want to print opinion as fact? No, they try not to. But Dave’s blog gets to merge his opinions with his facts.
I have a blog. I put stuff on it that expresses what I want to say. Whether it makes money or has certain standards is secondary to what I want to say. You can claim Dave has a responsibility to us as readers, but honestly, it all rests with him to change. Dave calls out a lot of people. But it doesn’t make him a hypocrite just because he doesn’t adhere to the code of ethics of our large media institutions that have tremendous responsibilities and powers, which Dave doesn’t have.
See, I’m not siding with Dave, who I don’t know personally. But as a blogger, he does not need to justify every statement he makes on his blog to every commenter who challenges him on them.
“But it doesn’t make him a hypocrite just because he doesn’t adhere to the code of ethics of our large media institutions that have tremendous responsibilities and powers, which Dave doesn’t have.”
Just to be clear-it’s ok in your mind, to be a ‘hypocrite’, as you say, by calling out large media institutions, just because you can claim “I’m a blogger!, and I don’t have the resources??”
What is the difference between ‘content’ and ‘form’?
Yes, that’s what he can claim, but no, that doesn’t make him a hypocrite. He’d be a hypocrite if he violated some blogger rule of ethics, one that is not nearly as well defined as the one for big city newspapers.
I’m glad you’re curious about these distinctions, but trust me, the world is not against you just ’cause no one agrees with you on this.