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 actually think they spent a little less on this film than on the first, so the net might be up a little.
Why do you continue to make up things or claim that a little frog told you? This is your kryptonite. Do you think Robert or Favs got LESS than the first one? Remember, it was money that drove T Howard away. Of course it cost MORE thank number one- probably substantially more than number one. Sequels ALWAYS do.
P of P will offer some competition, but let’s face it, that movie looks like a total bomb. Like Speed Racer kind of bomb (not in terms of quality).
Wow. Hardly a great opening for “Babies,” is it? And Focus really delivered on the marketing end, too. I’m guessing that any further expansion would be unlikely at this point.
Sorry to see that “Mother and Child” didn’t open stronger. That’s a wonderful movie with fantastic performances by Bening, Watts, Washigton, Jackson, Jones, et al. Like “Chloe,” I actually think that it should have gone out through another Sony division–maybe even Sony proper. Sony Classics will always be the home of rarefied, subtitled artfare to me (“A Prophet,” “Secret in Their Eyes,” etc.), and “M&C” is actually pretty commercial (i.e., multiplex-friendly) for a SPC release. Not “Iron Man” commercial, of course, but certainly as marketable-to-a-neat-profit as a “Crazy Heart.”
Wow. Hardly a great opening for “Babies,” is it? And Focus really delivered on the marketing end, too. I’m guessing that any further expansion would be unlikely at this point.
Sorry to see that “Mother and Child” didn’t open stronger. That’s a wonderful movie with fantastic performances by Bening, Watts, Washington, Jackson, Jones, et al. Like “Chloe,” I actually think that it should have gone out through another Sony division–maybe even Sony proper. Sony Classics will always be the home of rarefied, subtitled artfare to me (“A Prophet,” “Secret in Their Eyes,” etc.), and “M&C” is actually pretty commercial (i.e., multiplex-friendly) for a SPC release. Not “Iron Man” commercial, of course, but certainly as marketable-to-a-neat-profit as a “Crazy Heart.”
sorry for the double-post, gang.
that wasn’t deliberate on my end.
I am long Dreamworks Animation in my media hedge fund.
FWIW, on Wall Street no one is claiming the film is a breakthrough. After the slow start, investors are just happy that it showed legs and now offers a profitable sequel opportunity that is lower risk than the first film, particularly as DWA has improved on the merchandising front and learned to better exploit post theatrical with TV and even Broadway.
The upside to Dragon for DWA is that future earnings volatility has been reduced as it likely has a surefire money maker in the sequel. No guarantees of course. Earnings power is also arguably greater given the sequel plus one or two original films (which rarely miss for DWA) model has been affirmed for another year.
Also worth noting is that Dragon’s solid success enhances the company’s bargaining power on a new distribution deal. This helps given that DWA’s options outside of Paramount are limited. The new deal isn’t huge money, a couple to three percent on global grosses of $500-600 million or so, but that $12-$18 million is virtually pure profit except for taxes across two to three films per year.
Direwolf’s post made me sad.
Color me surprised. I thought IM2 would easily surpass what the Dark Knight opened too. The first was well-liked at a level that I still think is unfathomable. A movie like this is critic proof in the opening weekend, so what’s the plausible excuse for it opening opening less than New Moon and somewhere around Dead Man’s Chest?
It has all the theaters in the America to it’s own with no competition. Don’t tell me it’s because they don’t have the 3D money…
Focus opened “Babies” too wide; they should have opened the film in fewer theaters and bulid the film for there.
For “Mother and Child”…. Rodrigo Garcia’s film always don’t have very small box office potential despite of strong casts.
-“Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her” has all-star cast, but still went straight-to-video.
-“Nine Lives” also has all-star cast, but still only grossed $478,830.
-“Passengers” has Anne Hathaway, but still got a dumping 125 theaters release and went on grossing $292437.
I think that among Sony’s labels, Sony Pictures Classics is the best fit for “Mother and Child”. (In fact, after what TriStar did with “Passengers”, other Sony’s labels may not want to take chance to release a Rodrigo Garcia’s film) Sony Pictures Classics know how to bulid a film with good reviews, so “Mother and Child” may still become Rodrigo Garcia’s highest-grosssing film in the future.
“Chloe” is a niche film without critical support. Again, erotic films have small box office potential in US; you can see what Anthony Kaufman wrote in his article.
http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/10/can-sex-still-sell.php
Like what I said before, the US box office result of “Chloe” is definitely not bad (considering the film’s release pattern and mostly terrible reviews) At least, “Chloe” has grossed higher than
I’m also disappointed by the opening of “Metropolis” new version….
Focus opened “Babies” megaplex/arthouse/upmarket yet didn’t look too carefully at the release schedule. Touting an endorsement from a Christian fundamentalist outfit didn’t help.
@marychan: If SPC is so great why did it expand “The Secret in Their Lives” the day “Babies” opened? Regal had to put “Secret” in the UA Southampton because “Babies” had long been scheduled for the UA East Hampton. SPC also can’t get theater names or phone numbers correct in newspaper ads.
Chuck – I think they opened ‘Babies’ for Mother’s Day. That’s the schedule.
Uh yeah no way they spent less on Iron Man 2…regardless this is the 2nd best May opening of all-time, and a lot of the lower number can be chaulked up to the calendar this year…this really lines up against the SECOND week of May better, which is always a weaker weekend due to college finals. Most universities on the East Coast (above the south) are in the middle of Final Exams, and a lot of schools have Finals TODAY (at least 10 I know of) due to Snowmageddon re-scheduling.
One this that’s gone un-reported due to the seeming desire to see Les Moonves and CBS Films fail is that JLO’s “Backup Plan” recovered nicely and will likely end up in the green…ahead of rom-coms such as “When in Rome,” “Leap Year,” “She’s Out of my League…” all from established studios. Not the comeback Lopez was hoping for, but a MAJOR step forward for CBS Films.
Sorry, Christian.
If it makes you feel better, I attend one to two movies per week generally preferring smaller films. And I haven’t gone to Dragon just to boost the gross :-).
FWIW, DP often writes about the business end and I think his comments on Dragon were intended to be on the business end as opposed to the creative end.
I suspect that I am like you in that I prefer the creative and business ends did not often seem to be in conflict.
The other thing about “Mother and Child” is that it’s phony and derivative. I’m OK with it failing, although I do love “Nine Lives.”
RE: “Dragon,” DP Im not sure how many more ways you need it explained.
#1 animated film of all-time released in the first four months of the year, domestically and #2 worldwide by a wide margin over #3. (#1 is a sequel..Ice Age 2)
#Likely the #2 animated non-Pixar/Shrek film of all-time domestically.
Totally agree that 3D and inflation is a major factor, but it’s a breakthrough because this is only the second time an animated franchise has been launched outside of summer or winter holidays….$450 million (at least…China could push the Dragon movie to 500 million) worldwide is a groundbreaking number for an original animated feature outside of the holiday periods.
Totally disagree with you, Chris. I really think “M&C” is the best, most satisfying film Garcia has made to date.
And Mary: “M&C” merits a wider release than any of Garcia’ss previous movies if just by virtue of the fact that (a) it’s better; and (2) it’s more accessible.
I’m sick of defending “Chloe”‘s commercial prospects. I said from the start that it wasn’t going to receive the type of critical support most SPC boutique films routinely get. But it’s the type of slick, trashy, sexy “thriller” (with name actors) that’s dependably “commercial” on a non-blockbuster scale.
Although lacking an “urban” angle, it’s arguably superior to last spring’s Beyonce stinker that Screen Gems parlayed to very solid grosses. “Chloe” should have gone out via SG, too. It was never going to be a critics’ darling, but it could have pocketed some decent coin ($20-million at least) as a wide-ish release on the way to greener dvd pastures.
And comparing “Chloe” with “After.Life” is kind of absurd since “A.L” never went beyond 40-odd screens. “Chloe” almost looks like a saturation break by comparison.
Thanks to Don for telling us all the obvious.
Yes, I know that Downey and Favreau renegotiated and got more. Yes, I know that Terrence was dumped over money, amongst other issues… because there were other issues.
But the below-the line on the first film was so overblown that there is, actually, room for the above-the-line to expand by $25 million and to still cut budget. Did they? I obviously don’t KNOW or I would have said that.
Stupid people have done stupid things many times. Charlie’s Angels; Full Frontal greenlit at the over budget numbers from the first film, films have been made with so much going out in gross points that profit is nearly impossible. I’d love to know exactly how much is coming out off the top of Men In Black III.
And just so you know, Don, I don’t report one-source numbers unless the source is very, very reliable. (And I didn’t report this notion as a fact here… the movie smells of cost cutting.) Those “sources” have included you at times. Maybe a mistake?
If this tops at 130, Ethan better be right about the college factor because anything below 55M next weekend is going to make a lot of people nervous. Cap and Thor do not have the easy marketing hooks of Iron Man.
RE: “I actually think they spent a little less on this film than on the first…
While I see Don’s point, a few things have to be considered. First, RDJ was locked in for three when he first signed and IIRC, Fav’s was guaranteed for at least this sequel, so it’s not as if Marvel had to renegotiate higher upfronts to get them back. I’m sure the pot is sweetened, but it’s most likely backend.
Secondly, Marvel had to dump an extra 25M, IIRC, into the first one which muddled the actual final budget. Most report 140, but the pre-prod number was 125. Third, IM2 is reported at 200M which, unless Disney is silently throwing in, Marvel wouldn’t have on its own. By all accounts, IM2 was still financed through Marvel’s credit, so 200M for IM2 plus money for Thor and Cap is a real stretch. There’s a reason they sold to Disney and it wasn’t boredom.
IMO, IM2’s 150-160M since that was the cost of the first one after the post-prod mulligan. Talent is not going to add another 40M to this budget since Marvel notoriously lowballed Scarlett, Rourke and Cheadle, after the blowout with Howard and Jackson. While Don’s most likely right that IM2 naturally cost more, it wouldn’t be hard to argue that not as much money was allotted for effects. That could go to what Dave’s getting at, and other WOM floating around.
movieman: it looks like Screen Gems isn’t good at releasing adult-driven R-rating films. The disappointing opening of “Death at a Funeral” is one of the example.(Sceeen Gems had hoped for $20 million opening) The box office failure of another R-rated erotic film “In The Cut” is another example.
Acccording to Variety, Screen Gems has a mandate — with few exceptions — to bring films in at PG-13. it clearly indicates that “Chloe” would not be a film that Screen Gems want to release. (Again, “Obsessed” is rated PG-13).
By the way, “Chloe” flopped badly in UK, France and Italy; comparing to those results, the film’s US box office performance is indeed more respectful.
Apparently Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group(SPWAG) acquired “Chloe” mainly for home video/VOD market, and $2.8 million box office gross should be enough to ensure financial success for SPWAG.
Dragons could make 5x opening. Suh-weet!
As for Iron Dude: The Major Motion Sequel, it appears the lazy but prominent Transformers 2 mode of marketing of “Here we are. Come.” just didn’t work out so well this time around.
I’m with Tofu on this one and have some analytical proof from a friend of mine, that had no idea Iron Man 2 came out this weekend. Seriously, that’s mind-boggling to me, but that does reek of lazy ass marketing. Here’s to Thor and Cap getting a much better push than IM2 got.
“I’m with Tofu on this one and have some analytical proof from a friend of mine, that had no idea Iron Man 2 came out this weekend.”
That example is so far from analytic proof that it is mind-boggling to me that you would use that word.
I’m pretty sure IO meant “anecdotal”.
If they want to keep MIB3 costs down just don’t hire Tommy Lee Jones, after his sleep walking performance in the last one it seems like a waist f money and nobody who is going to pay to see is going to pay to see HIM in it. Plus my guess is Barry doesn’t get the call to do this one either, cost savings there. It’ll be somone Will picks and they’ll get them cheap.
Yes I meant anecdotal but a_loco is best represented by this… http://api.ning.com/files/uxLbwSVx3LsDRvaWE3xaPXbrOjeOVcPOlqThbnD3kYXI59E2EwBXg86ebmBFacWFQfxGbtNwhCUgT*pyZrJATAgPJW-2*RGc/Epic_Fail.jpg .
I finally got around to ALICE IN WONDERLAND and there are only two words to say:
MIA WASIKOWSKA POWER.
Sheeeeeeee’s CHARMING. WHOA. SO AROUSING having her come out of the screen in 3D with her FETCHING, DEMURE, SHY, SUBMISSIVE, NONTHREATENING sexiness. Not quite K-STEW levels but SO. DELIGHTFUL.
I also liked how she could go into all these different SIZES. Did anyone else see this movie? Did you get aroused when she’d get all TALL and then get all SHORT and her clothes would sort of come off? It gave me so many GOOD IDEAS like it would be cool if you could shrink a hot chick down to LITTLE SIZE and then you could make them swim around in your glass of vodka or something in a LITTLE OUTFIT and bare feet, like they’d be the olive or something to give it a HOT CHICK FLAVORING. Then when she’s all TALL she could tower over you and YELL AT YOU A LOT.
plus she had nice shoulders, so thin and hot and WISPY and WAIFISH and DEMUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE.
Mary- I guess I’m just an old fogey stuck in the ’80s who remembers when a “sexy adult thriller” like “Fatal Attraction” could become a word of mouth sensation and a box-office behemoth.
Not that “Chloe” could have ever reached those heights–or even “Obsessed” levels. But treating it like a typical rarefied SPC artflick
just seemed perversely wrong-headed.
Btw, “Death at a Funeral” seems like a decent enough grosser to me. There’s even an outside chance that it’ll surpass “Kick-Ass” theatrically when all is said and done.
I really hope that “Mother and Child” catches on and eventually expands beyond the arthouse ghetto. It’s a wonderful movie with fantastic performances.
movieman: “Death at a Funeral” is not a box office flop; the film just didn’t do as strong as what Screen Gems expected.
In the ’80s, films like “Chloe”, “Mother the Child” and even “Cyrus” would get much wider releases from major studios.. But now, adult-driven films have less and less box office potential, since more and more adult audience choose to stay home to watch films and HBO/Showtime’s tv series rather than watch films in theaters…. and the studios also release fewer and fewer adult-driven films (and killed their artouse divisions). For the moviegoers like you and me, 80s would be a much better era than 2010….
On the other hand, I was also worried that SPC would treated “Chloe” like their typical arthouse releases. Luckily, SPC didn’t. (According to boxofficemojo.com, “Chloe” is SPC’s widest opener. Most of SPC’s releases didn’t open in more than 40 theaters)
“Mother and Child” will stay in the arthouse ghetto thanks to product flow.
@marychan: “Death at a Funeral” (the current version) went out megaplex/African American. “In the Cut” went out megaplex/arthouse/upmarket.
I’m the one that failed?
BTW, that’s notanecdotal proof, that’s anecdotal evidence, and spotty anecdotal evidence at that.
Srsly, Colbert spent five minute riffing on how ubiquitous the IM2 marketing was. So just because your friend didn’t know about it, Paramount didn’t do their job?
If the problem was marketing, it means people weren’t responding to the marketing, not that they didn’t want to come.
*not that they hadn’t heard of it.*
Question….is Samuel L. Jackson’s reported 9-picture deal counted in the Iron Man 2 budget? Because that’s an 8-figure price tag right there.
I agree that “Funeral” is a sizable hit, Mary. Not sure what SG’s expectations were, but $40-million for a non-Tyler Perry “urban” comedy seems about right.
“Dr. Parnassus” opened in my neck of the woods this January, but “Chloe” didn’t. While the Egoyan certainly played in more theaters than the usual SPC fare (what are we comparing it with, though?
“A Prophet”?), it was hardly a saturation break by any means.
Btw, I commented on the surprisingly sturdy legs evinced by the largely unheralded “City Island” last weekend, but nobody took the bait. I still think it has an outside chance of surpassing “Greenberg” thanks to positive w.o.m. Makes me wonder what a more savvy distributer might have done with it.
Turns out “Babies” did better at the box office than originally projected, thanks to “a huge Mother’s Day bump” (ha!):
http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2768&p=.htm
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/dont_count_out_babies/