MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB for a New Week

Since landing in LA, not much posting, not much Tweeting.

This will soon change. But for now…

Be Sociable, Share!

76 Responses to “BYOB for a New Week”

  1. Michael says:

    DP: Apologies for being a bit random, but you are so in the know I thought you would be the best to ask about this. Does Scientology actually have the power to block a high profile film? Re:

    Or: am I being a paranoid loser?

  2. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Anyone else watch Boardwalk Empire? Pretty damn good pilot. Lives up to the hype. Bummed that Parks & Rec won’t be back this week but quite excited for the return of Kenny Powers and Dexter. Hope no one minds TV talk.

  3. SJRubinstein says:

    I read somewhere that the budget for “The Master” was around $35 million and, yes, dollars and cents-wise it kind of feels like a risk for a period drama. But from a guy who just made “There Will be Blood?!?” It sucks. I read that script. It was fucking amazing and all this pussy-footing around whether or not it was about Scientology is crazy. Anyone who even quickly scans a Wikipedia entry on Hubbard after reading the thing will see that it’s about as dead-on as you can be a’la “Kane” and Hearst.

    I guess I hadn’t thought about it before, but Renner now doing “Mission: Impossible 4” after being on this seems weird, but only if I was looking for conspiracies everywhere. Which I do. And had found odd from the start Hoffman’s involvement after “M:I-3,” but hey.

  4. David Poland says:

    BYOB is all about random, Michael.

    No, Scientology cannot stop a project. But they can keep, without saying a word, major studios from buying domestic rights, just because they don’t want the headache. The same would be true of a movie that took on the Catholic Church or Israel. Say what you will about Harvey Weinstein, but getting involved with Miral is an act of bravery.

    Reading that article, it doesn’t sound like anything but a funding issue. And this is not new for PTA. There Will Be Blood sat around for years until PTA’s agent took control of a Dependent and co-funded the film, which lost money for Paramount Vantage, in spite of all the acclaim and what I felt was as strong a box office showing as that material was ever going to have. Add to that, PTA demands 100% control.

    So, as SJR wrote, it starts as risky on a purely financial level and then you add the potential of angry Scientologists and then consider that none of the Dependents are making films at that budget anymore, so you only have majors to release the film (River Road needs to cover its ass) and you get a red-light project.

    Fincher, Soderbergh, Jonze, Romanek, and others who work in PTA’s film world space have made the choice to go more – and sometimes less – mainstream in order to continue working. PTA is more stubborn. I would love to see him get the film made, but unless someone like Ryan Kavanaugh decides to jump in or he cuts the budget to the teens – the talent, I believe, will follow him and work for virtually nothing – it may not happen unless the economics of indie change a lot one day.

  5. Jake McClure says:

    This sounded like a hard sell from the beginning (scientology allusions or not), but I do have to admit that I was confident in hearing about PTA starting work soon when I saw him at the Academy Noir series for “White Heat”— he seemed in great spirits and was the only writer from the series screenings i went to who actually stayed through the screening (though I’m sure he is used to projects falling apart and icing his wounds with cagney)

  6. hcat says:

    Saw 12th and Delaware from the Jesus Camp crew on HBO a few weeks ago and was very impressed. I know it played some festivals but did not get a proper theatrical release, will it be eligible for a documentary Oscar?

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    What’s all this I hear about a movie titled THE VIOLENT KIND that’s premiering this week at Fantastic Fest?

  8. IOv3 says:

    The more I see ads for The Social Network, the more it seems like that movie is destined to bomb. Anybody else get the same impression?

  9. LexG says:

    IO, I don’t really care, but is this one of your ROOTING SPORTS FAN things where you’re just REALLY anti- a certain movie for NO reason? Every time someone mentions this movie you act like it’s some crosstown rival instead of an important work from one of our best director, which has unanimously terrific buzz.

    And you have this irrational RAGE about Andrew Garfield (for taking over your beloved Spiderman) and Rooney Mara (for taking over Dragon Tattoo, as if the original was some masterwork or anything)…

    And all that’s fine, but IT IS SORT OF HYPOCRITICAL that you come here and roast David day in and day out for his biases, when you do the exact same thing to the NTH DEGREE with stuff YOU don’t like… Christ, at worst Poland will UNDERSELL something (Inception, Iron Man, etc.)

    When you don’t like something (Avatar, Social Network, Rooney Mara, Andrew Garfield), you go on this SCORCHED-EARTH KAMIKAZE BLITZKRIEG attack that’s borderline deranged.

    What’s the difference exactly?

  10. Foamy Squirrel says:

    To be fair, “I think the trailer sucks” comments aren’t exactly rare around here, but your broader point still stands.

  11. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Definitely not getting the impression that The Social Network is going to bomb, and Lex is 100% right with his comments above regarding IO, rage, and hypocrisy.

  12. IOv3 says:

    Paul, if you want to fight we can fight but there is no rage or hypocrisy here. I just see that film bombing for multiple factors, most of them being it’s a facebook movie. Sure, almost everyone who post here will see this film but I simply do not see anyone else caring because facebook is not cool to a lot of people, and let us not even get started with the older folks.

    That aside, Lex, Garfield has about as much charisma as anyone can with that horrible smile. While Rooney Mara is the combination of two organizations that either steal superbowls or win superbowls on questionable calls. Her name alone guarantees that I will never like her or her sister, but I am a fan of the TENNMAN and Eisenberg. They alone will make The Social Network worth seeing.

  13. yancyskancy says:

    IO has a point. At only about half a billion subscribers, Facebook clearly doesn’t interest most of the world. I think I can forgive Rooney Mara for not choosing her grandfathers more carefully, but I’m not sure how to process the knowledge that Armie Hammer’s great-grandfather, though quite the philanthropist, was friendly with Lenin and made an illegal contribution to Nixon’s presidential campaign (thanks, Wikipedia!).

  14. IOv3 says:

    Yancy, you act as if all of those 500 million people are real or not multiple accounts like a lot of people have, because Zynga is a beast. Nevertheless, facebook is not exactly popular with everyone and Zuckerberg has never come across as a sympathetic to anyone who has ever read anything about him. This alone makes me question the film’s profitability, sorry.

  15. Triple Option says:

    I’m sure it’s, well, I hope it’s going to be a lot different, but I see the trailer for Social Network and I see the movie 21 all over again.

  16. hcat says:

    I actually agree with IO that Social Network will have an uphill battle due to the subject matter and lack of star power. It will be watched by the arthouse crowd and praised to the heavens but ignored by the commoners. This will be the Insider all over again.

    On another note, just finishing The Secret Behind Their Eyes and it is just incredible. Best film from Sony Classics since The Lives of Others.

  17. IOv3 says:

    Triple, thank you for bring up that up, because good lord it’s so very apt. It’s ridiculous.

  18. Kevin Schoonover says:

    Haven’t a clue how THE SOCIAL NETWORK will play, but IO’s comment, “and let us not even get started with the older folks,” jumped out at me.

    Facebook is THE place for us middle aged folks to reconnect with our high school glory years, and we’re not alone. My 66-year-old mother is all over The FB. And so are her friends. Aunts and grandmothers and retired teachers LOVE how they can stay in touch.

    The kids still dig it, but don’t underestimate how many bored seniors are out there obsessively updating their status and playing Farmville.

    They probably won’t affect the box office much. They still don’t frequent cinemas very often regardless of the product, but it’s not because they don’t know what social networking is.

  19. leahnz says:

    yes i’m personally allergic to facebook, totally freaks me out — social networking on the computer is the devil as far as i’m concerned, everyone should just toil away in whatever little enclaves of existence they’ve eked out for themselves or god forbid pick up the fucking phone to actually talk to people (or skype i guess) and not fraternise with a bunch of dinglberryies from yer past through cyberspace — but that’s just me being a freak, it seems EVERYBODY is on facebook…people i see all the time are like “hit me up on facebook” and i’m like “fuck off, i’ll see you tomorrow at lunch, egg”, super creepy. but to deny that facebook is a bit of phenom for multi-age-groups seems unwise. having said that, i don’t know what to make of ‘the social network’ and its prospects, time will tell. but i’ll show up for fincher.

    i came across this in my travels, what’s ‘the truth’ about this whole deal:

  20. leahnz says:

    helps if i actually insert the link:

    bitter disgruntled employees or the asshole bosses who screw them over, who does one believe

  21. leahnz says:

    also, i just tried for the first time to edit my mental spelling of ‘dingleberries’ above and the edit function wouldn’t work for me — cursor stuck at the beginning of the paragraph, which is only helpful in a very limited capacity, really — is this problem just mine or is the edit function impaired?

  22. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Did the 60 Minutes story about the tobacco companies have a comparable level of public awareness? I don’t think The Insider is a good comparison. We may think of it as a prestige project with Fincher and Sorkin. The masses think it’s a drama about a company that’s an integral part of their daily life. What has an awareness level in the U.S. like Facebook does? I don’t have an account but I can’t go an hour without hearing or reading about it. I think people are underestimating its wide appeal. This will be more Panic Room/Benjamin Button/Seven than Zodiac/Fight Club/The Game in terms of box office.

  23. scooterzz says:

    fwiw: The Social Network is not only the best film I’ve seen this year but might be the best I’ve seen since ’08. If nominations were announced today, I would guess it to be a lock for Best Picture, Director and Screenplay. Not much in the acting departments but there would be a chance for Timberlake as Supporting Actor.
    Leah: Nice to see you back. You stopped posting right about the time of the quake and it gave pause.

  24. hcat says:

    Stella – It was simply the preformance and public reaction I was comparing, not content. It was just when I thought of a highly touted well respected movie that critics and movie fans could not whip the general public into seeing, I thought of Insider. Though if we do compare content, cigerettes and television were a bigger part of our life in 99 than facebook is today.

    And I haven’t seen much marketing for it but its obvious its about facebook right? Will people look at the name on the Marque or Fandango and know “Hey, that’s that facebook movie.”

  25. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    I think people are referring to it as “the facebook movie.” This is anecdotal, but I work with people between 22 and 40. Awareness is through the roof. People have been talking about it for weeks now. Also, I don’t watch much TV but I do watch some baseball on TBS and ESPN. Ads for it have been nonstop. There’s stuff all over the subways in NYC too.

    How can you definitively state that cigarettes were a bigger part of life in 1999 than Facebook is in 2010? More people use Facebook today than smoked in 1999 right? More people can name Facebook today than could name tobacco companies in 1999 right? More people use Facebook today than watched 60 Minutes in 1999 right?

  26. Telemachos says:

    I don’t get why you’d have to be a Facebook user or even interested in Facebook to be interested in the movie. It looks like a modern version of a classic cutthroat-success-story (going back to KANE and probably earlier). You didn’t have to be a hedge-fund trader to be interested in WALL STREET. Or, for that matter, a mobster to like “The Sopranos”. Or an advertising executive to like “Mad Men”.

  27. IOv3 says:

    Paul, that story about cigarettes was huge and pretty much had a hand in changing the country. Facebook really did not do anything except have a dude with color blindness decide to tone down the craziness of Myspace.

    Again, personal anecdotal evidence is personal anecdotal evidence, but the Social Network is going up against Let Me In. Do you folks really collectively believe it can beat a vampire movie? I do not. Sorry.

    Oh yeah Kevin, you are very correct but do you really believe they want to see a facebook movie? Oh yeah in this paragraph just cause, I love Sorkin and Fincher as much as anything but Scoot, I find that revelation really sad.

  28. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Facebook hasn’t changed the country? Listen, I don’t like Facebook and don’t use it, but I would never suggest it hasn’t impacted the country. That’s absurd. Comparing it to a story about tobacco companies and cigarettes doesn’t make a lick of sense. Apples and oranges. Again, you are letting personal bias influence your analysis, the exact same thing you rant and rave at DP for allegedly doing.

    Do I think a PG-13 Facebook movie can beat the R-rated Let The Right One In remake? Yes, absolutely I do. Even if it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean it’s a failure or disappointment.

  29. hcat says:

    Well, I would argue that Marlboro and Joe Camel were more well known in 99 than facebook is today, though you are correct that it is futile for me to compare examples of total saturation. One thing though is that Facebook is a reletavly new phenom while the tabacco company narrative that The Insider comments on went on for decades and was huge national news for much of that time. When the movie came out it was a story we had been living with our entire lives. The events in The Insider leant itself to be marketed as a Thriller or at least a tense drama, it had some strong stars, fantastic reviews and people still shrugged their shoulders at it.

    Which all goes back to my original fears that this has an uphill battle from a marketing perspective and it would be a shame for it to die on the vine. If it appears to you that awareness is through the roof with its target audience, fantastic, that and its obvious quality and award potential should mean decent legs. I’m certainly not wishing it ill, just feeling a little jittery about the box office.

  30. hcat says:

    And again, originally I was only comparing it to The Insider simply as an example of a quality movie that didn’t catch on.

  31. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Russell Crowe wasn’t a huge star when The Insider was released and Al Pacino has never been a huge box office draw. While I love The Insider, it’s an R-rated thriller about tobacco companies. Not exactly an easy sell no matter how good it is. The Social Network is PG-13 and an easier sell to a younger, larger audience. I just don’t think it’s an effective comparison.

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    “21” was a great movie. And it made a lot of money. Even though certain people underestimated it.

    [Quickly ducks]

    Nyah, nyah! You missed me, Dave!

  33. yancyskancy says:

    It’s probably not gonna hurt that The Social Network is about young people. That demo may find it novel to have a real-life drama targeted to them. Eh, who knows? But I do feel the movie will do just fine, even if vamps win the first weekend.

    As for The Insider, sure, everyone knew about cigarettes and 60 Minutes, but I seriously doubt the average moviegoer at the time knew anything about Wigand and the whistleblowing except what they saw in the trailer.

  34. IOv3 says:

    Paul, seriously, go read what I wrote. Here, I will help you out because obviously I insense you so much, you ignored this; “Facebook really did not do anything except have a dude with color blindness decide to tone down the craziness of Myspace.”

    You seemingly know nothing about social networking and apparently read the above without fully grasping the point. Facebook took what Myspace and previous sites like friendster were doing, and cut out the nonsense to create a pure feed. Oddly enough, twitter takes all of the nonsense of facebook and breaks it down to an even more raw of a feed. The point remains though, Facebook is simply Myspace without all of the hassle and the ridiculous color schemes. That’s the facts. If you were actually interested in social networking, you would have understood that point like 5 years ago.

    The fact that you keep trying in vain to compare me to DP is pretty funny when you are obviously letting your own PERSONAL BIAS get in the way of an honest question about a movie that no matter who wrote it or directed it, is about FACEBOOK. It’s about FACEBOOK while LET ME IN is about VAMPIRES. The Social Network will be lucky to get 15 million out of that weekend.

  35. Telemachos says:

    IO, sorry to say, with your recent box-office track record, your claims that it’ll flop basically mean it’s gonna be a breakout hit. 🙂

  36. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    You can insult me all you want IO and (wrongly) assert that I know nothing about social networking but that doesn’t change the fact that Facebook, even if not revolutionary in design, became enormously popular and a huge part of people’s daily lives. You claim to possess facts but your words indicate otherwise, and apparently you’re blind to the fact that you engage in the same tactics you claim to deplore. That’s fine. Coming from you it’s hardly shocking. Regarding box office prognosticating, didn’t you think that Scott Pilgrim was going to be a huge hit?

  37. IOv3 says:


  38. hcat says:

    True Yancy but I’m sure even fewer facebook users know about the drama that went into creating facebook which is what the film is all about.
    Just because its a product that is in heavy use does not guarentee interest in a movie about its creation. Every single American has at one time eaten a bowl of Corn Flakes but that didn’t spell success for Road to Wellville. The movie doesn’t just have to be about something we are familiar with, it has to be entertaining, compelling, exciting…. which we know it is because of the euphoric reviews. Every thing I have been trying to say is that based on the trailer and limited marketing I have seen for the movie, none of what makes it spectacular is apparent, and if I was choosing a film to watch based only on the 30 second spot this would be skipped.

    Wasn’t the same true for Zodiac? The larger themes of the movie could not be compressed enough in a logline so everyday people thought it was just a serial killer movie with b list stars?

  39. chairs missing says:

    In my entirely subjective & humble opinion, not having seen The Social Network yet, I believe that there may only be one way a comparison to The Insider could prove somewhat apt.

    In 1999, most smokers already knew full well that it wasn’t a good habit to have, that it could lead to major health problems, that the tobacco companies were wholly sleazy in their practices, & they were already starting to feel ostracized by others for smoking. Many of those 1999 smokers already wanted to quit & were struggling with that. Some of them still are in 2010.

    As a result, a lot of these people weren’t terribly inclined to go see a movie that would make them feel bad about something they already felt bad about anyway, no matter how good the cast or the reviews.

    If The Social Network challenges the millions of regular Facebook users to question the validity of how they spend so much of their free time & maybe even feel bad about it, then it may face an uphill struggle at the box office. If not, then it should be OK.

  40. Telemachos says:

    IO, ha! True enough. (Except we both wanted and thought INCEPTION would be pretty successful).

    The thing is (as far as I can tell; I haven’t seen the movie) — SOCIAL NETWORK is *not* about how millions of people interact socially online and whether or not that’s a good thing. It’s about some brash brilliant college kids — and in particular ONE particularly brash and brilliant kid — who challenge the typical way to start up a company, who skirt the rules of “acceptable” behavior to do so, and in the process create a tremendous success…. possibly losing their souls and friends to do so.

    Thinking about it in terms of the specific Facebook experience is like examinating CITIZEN KANE through the specifics of newspaper publishing.

  41. hcat says:

    And all this begs the question, what is the bar that we are looking for in terms of Box Office? Nobody is expecting this to be a top ten grosser. Someone above mentioned 21, wouldn’t Sony be more than pleased if Social Network hit those numbers while ringing a lot of award bells?

  42. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    A $24 million opening and $157 in worldwide box office; I think that would be pretty good for The Social Network. No idea what it cost to make.

  43. Telemachos says:

    The budget is pretty modest — $35-40 million, right? Difficult for it not to be at least a relative success with those numbers, unless it totally tanks HARD.

  44. Al E Ase says:

    Guys, I find it odd that noone has made this point yet, but Facebook is right at the center of the current cultural zeitgeist- not only in the US but accross the world. Now, as half a billion people are using it- actively using it- on a daily basis, wouldn’t you think that they’d be interested in seeing the inception (hehe couldn’t resist) of it on the big screen? Especially if it’s salacious and entertaining on top of that? I mean just by the nature of facebook everyone who uses is part of the story.

    And you can’t argue that it’s similar to The Insider or big tobacco because cigarettes did not define the zeitgeist of that time.

    The Social Network has a shitload of breakout potential- who wouldn’t want to find out about the dirty laundry of the guys who control your online playground of choice? We’re a society of voyeurs!

    On a sidenote (and I’m not dissing), I don’t know how many out there watch The Venture Bros., but I always hear Henchman 21’s voice when I read IO’s screeds 🙂

  45. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    I was trying to make that point while arguing with IO but you did a much better job.

  46. LexG says:

    I’ve made this point already it seems, but I think if there’s anything holding it back, it’s not “facebook movie.”

    It’s the cast. Guys my age, even big Fincher fans, still have some resistance to seeing Timberlake and Eisenberg. Most people still do ask “Who’s in it?” right off the bat, and neither of those seem like guys who’ve earned anyone’s hard-earned cash in a Fincher movie. I think it’ll do well, but a lot of 30ish guys in my sphere kinda scoff and mumble at the idea of an evening with Justin Timberlake, whether it’s from the director of “Seven” or not. It’d be like trying to get someone AMPED for the new Scorsese movie… about pop music and starring Justin Bieber. Gonna be some considerable resistance without a male lead who “dude” audiences feel comfortable with.

  47. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    At the same time Lex will Timberlake help draw a larger female audience?

  48. Al E Ase says:

    Thanks Paul!

    Lex you have a valid point, but regardless I think that if word of mouth picks up then the film will (rightfully) be less about Fincher/Sorkin for us and Timberlake/Eisenberg for Average 30yo Joe.

    If anything (and I hesitate to taint the film by comparison)- The Social Network reminds me a bit of W. Remember how before it came out you felt that everyone in their right minds would/should want to see this film because, well, we had all been affected by Bush for 8 years?

    To be honest, film like this (unless the film is so good that it breaks out on word of mouth alone)… It’ll all come down to whatever STORY the media runs with. If they blow up the scandal/controversy/tell all angle, I think it could be huge. Otherwise it’s a small teen performer vs an arty awards movie. Who knows

  49. leahnz says:

    aw thanks scoot, unscathed by the big quake here in the wellyhood but not so lucky for lots of people down south, a national disaster for our country. good to see you hotblogging again, hope you stick around man.

    (i didn’t even feel the tremor in the night here but down south christchurch and the canterbury region were heavily damaged; that there were no deaths is just about miraculous and a testament to the quake hitting in the wee hours of the night, but more importantly sound building practices. trivia: the recent major quakes in haiti and canterbury were extremely similar, 7 and 7.1 on the richter scale respectively, both the result of sudden ruptures of a strike-slip fault near major cities that caused ground surface rippling/displacement and open fault cracks in the earth — but the death tolls of aprox. 200,000 in haiti vs nil in chch highlights the very serious and deadly problem rapidly expanding third world population centres face, many built near known fault lines using sub-standard building methods that continue to cause unfathomable death tolls when the inevitable quakes strike, so much needless death and misery because of lack of regulation and best practice, just heartbreaking)

  50. leahnz says:

    “Guys, I find it odd that noone has made this point yet, but Facebook is right at the center of the current cultural zeitgeist- not only in the US but accross the world.”

    well i thought i sort of made that point in my comment upthread, since i’m in the ‘across the world’ category.

    and ftr, ‘facebook’ grew out of ‘facemash’, proving beyond a doubt that zuckerberg or howeveryouspellit is a grade-A twat

    (it’s always nice to see perpetuated the male-centric myth of how a movie’s reception and financial success will be dependant/live or die on the reception of ‘the average man’ and if ‘guys’ are interested…as is the case for most movies, the breakout financial success or failure of TSB at the cinema will depend on whether chicks dig it or not)

  51. IOv3 says:

    Leah, I have to ask, are the ladies in your part of the world being kept down, or are responses coming from your feminist side? Whateverthecase, you just love to diminish men when it comes to certain aspects that rather you like them or not, are fact. What a man wants or does not want to see, good or bad, is still more important than what a woman wants to see or not to see. I am not stating that it’s good business or anything to ignore women but if the Social Network is going to succeed, it’s going to need to get guys into seats to sit through a movie starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, and TENNMAN.

    That aside; Paul, you represent why this fucking blog is so fucking ridiculous. You are giving me shit for stating that TSN will have a hard time finding an audience then keep giving me shit about going off on David. Here’s the problem: you are coming across like a siccophantic fanboy ass.

    I am glad you are excited for this film but it’s no attack against it, to question if it will garner an audience. The fact that you think it’s going to make 24 million against LET ME IN (a horror movie opening in OCTOBER)is sort of funny and if you want to compare what I wrote about SP, then YOU ARE FUCKING OUT OF LUCK BUDDY! Why? I had it coming in third that weekend and it still, coming in fifth, almost matched my prediction.

    So, again, if you want to call me out for something then do not do it yourself. I had hope, you BELIEVE THAT IT WILL, and that’s the difference. Sure, Facebook represents SOCIAL MEDIA INVOLVED IN PEOPLE’S LIVES, but most of the people who use facebook had a myspace accounts and possibly one of the many versions of social networking going on last decade. They also have twitter accounts now, so, yeah, it’s another facet of life, but it’s not like it’s new.

  52. hcat says:

    IO I think you are overestimating the appeal of Let Me In and missing the underlying appeal of the current Vampire craze. Vampires only sell if they make you tingle in your pink bits (though I would think from a practical standpoint a sexy Vampire would be at a considerable disadvantage, the more that Bryce Howard sucks on my neck the less blood would be flowing to the north end of my Torso).

    Let Me In will probably preform slightly better than studio mate The Crazies, getting a few more looks from people curious about the original.

  53. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    IO to me: “you are coming across like a siccophantic fanboy ass.”

    I haven’t laughed so hard in ages. Are you serious or is this a clever joke? I don’t even know where to begin. Um, pot, meet kettle. Don’t throw stones in a glass house. And so on. Your delusions are obviously quite pronounced IO.

    Since when does an October release guarantee runaway success for a horror movie? Quarantine opened to what, $12 million in 2008? Surely there are more examples. I want to see Let Me In and what I’ve been reading about it has me pretty excited, but I believe you are seriously underestimating The Social Network and inflating Let Me In’s appeal.

  54. IOv3 says:

    Paul wrote rather poorly; “I haven’t laughed so hard in ages. Are you serious or is this a clever joke? I don’t even know where to begin. Um, pot, meet kettle.”

    Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Not a fanboy, nor have I ever been a fanboy, and if you think I am a fanboy. That’s simply just not true. Again, I love Fincher, I have watched the West Wing through three times and always get a bit sad when Sorkin leaves the show, but that does not keep me from being objective unlike you. You are simply being a fanboy with this movie and this is why I cannot trust any opinion you have about it because it’s clearly being skewed by your own biases. Seriously, get a handle on your life.

    “Don’t throw stones in a glass house. And so on. Your delusions are obviously quite pronounced IO.”

    This coming from the guy with such limited space outside of his own backside, that he’s simply doing what he accused me of doing with Scott Pilgrim, but some what believes his doing it is A OKAY! Sure, it’s not.

    You also have to ask yourself; who wants to see The Social Network and for the life of me, outside of fans of either Sorkin and Fincher, I cannot see anyone wanting to see this film over a horror film opening the same weekend. Especially that horror film going after the same audience. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but TSN seems to be for like 15 people and those 15 cannot seemingly agree on way to see it either.

  55. leahnz says:

    “What a man wants or does not want to see, good or bad, is still more important than what a woman wants to see or not to see.”

    egg: FACT – several studies show that women purchase over 50% of movie tickets (btw that’s over half for the maths challenged). most often, if a movie makes bank in the cinema these days it’s because chicks – not just men – dig it for whatever myriad of reasons chicks dig stuff. deal with it.

    i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again as we embark on a glorious new era of inexplicable bizarro world io V FOR VENDETTA nonsense against TSN:

    stfu, moron

  56. LexG says:

    It’s harder to follow the feuds here with this new “reply to” feature, so that half of the IO-leah-Stella ranting is way, way upthread in distorted blocks, then it continues down here…

    It was easier to read and follow throughlines when the whole thing was in strict chronological order, no?

  57. IOv3 says:

    Leah, this is why you are such a fucking hassle to reply to because I just knew, stating a fucking fact of the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY, would put you into one of your fucking crazy FITS that end with you lacking the ability to type SHUT THE FUCK UP. Seeing as how you get upset over the drop of a fucking hat. Shut the fuck up, yadda yadda yadda, fuck you.

    Nevertheless, I have not stated a fucking thing about not looking forward to the Social Network, but god help me for asking a question about it’s earning potential, because doing so IS WRONG! It’s apparently alright to shit on Scott Pilgrim or anything I enjoy, but if I question the profitability of a fucking Fincher movie. Apparently I am an asshole. Fuck, you people are god damn weird.

  58. leahnz says:

    io, io, io. first of all, you made no mention of the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY in your prior comment, just so you know. not that it will make any difference to your rationality going forward.

    and huh? i’m lacking the ability to type ‘shut the fuck up’? but i just did. here it is again:

    stfu, moron

    (and no, not upset or in a CRAZY FIT in the slightest, sorry silly. kinda happy as a clam at the mo, actually. you must be mistaking me for your own delusional one-eyed self — and btw, it’s crystal to anyone who is not an outpatient at sunnybrook hill that you are preparing to embark on a ‘social network’ jihad of epic proportions; could it be because (gasp!) it might eclipse the gloriously over-hyped ‘inception’ as the critic’s wordy, intellectual darling? boo hoo!)

  59. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Actually, the advertising industry has been dominated by female-targeted campaigns for the last 10 years. It’s only on the client-side of US TV and Film that they obsess over Males 18-35. Agency-side it’s women all the way, baby.

  60. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    I am not being a fan boy simply because I disagree with you about its box office prospects IO. I am not calling people morons for not thinking it’s going to be like the best movie ever. I am not accusing someone of being an unhip loser for not thinking the trailer is wicked awesome. I don’t know if it’s good because I haven’t seen it so I am not calling anyone names for not agreeing with me that it’s a great movie. See the difference? I simply believe it has wider appeal than you do. I think it will do better than Let Me In.

  61. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Also, apologies for the ranting.

  62. IOv3 says:

    I change my mind. There’s no winning with you three. Seriously. What the fuck ever.

  63. Foamy Squirrel says:

    (edited out long, boring waffle about advertising industry)

    Fair enough.

    For the record, I agree with you that it’s probably not going to do a $20mil+ opening weekend. While I’ve heard people talking about “The Facebook Movie” there’s usually an “Oh god…” at the start of the sentence, accompanied by rolling of the eyes. Awareness isn’t everything – just ask BP.

    I just don’t agree with you (and Lex) that they need to “get the guys”.

    (man, I’m really abusing the edit function today)

  64. IOv3 says:

    Foamy, the above post went through freaking 10 iterations. Seriously, I changed it 10 times and it got a lot mellower towards version 9 but eventually what the fuck am I going to do? Yell at you all day? Seriously, shit got out of fucking hand again and I really could give a fuck about arguing over a bunch of fucking conjecture. I could be right, I could be wrong, and we will find out next week.

    That aside, I think they just need to get people Foamy. I think this film is as much as an uphill climb for people as Scott Pilgrim.

  65. Joe leydon says:

    Yes. You are correct.

  66. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Since they cookie the site already with the autoname-fill thing, can’t they just do a “last visited thread at *timestamp*” and compress all entries that you’ve theoretically already seen (showing the first 100 characters of each previous comment in a conversation if they have a new reply)?

    That would make the new entries much more readable.

  67. hcat says:

    They make a decent point, if it opens to 20 plus (which I am skeptical of) word of mouth carries it to a Hundred Million. If it opens under 20 it hits under 70 with the dvd release comes out the week before oscars to capitize on any acclaim.

  68. cadavra says:

    Wow, 68 comments. Welcome back, everybody else!

  69. Al E Ase says:


  70. IOv3 says:

    Cad, once again let it be known that…






  71. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    I think Zuckerberg’s $100 million gift to Newark schools announced on Oprah a week before the movie opens is only going to help. I read a few stories about it yesterday and of course they all mention The Social Network. IO you have a point in that all the good buzz, stellar reviews, and media attention couldn’t elevate SP past a $10.6 million opening weekend. There’s an outside chance TSN could land soft as well. Can they get teens? I don’t know. Let Me In is R so that might help it. Plus some might think they’re getting a juicy Us Weekly/In Touch-type behind the scenes tale of the guy who started Facebook.

  72. IOv3 says:

    Paul, I am glad the kid is helping Newark. That’s cool but he still has a lot more amending to do to make up for his world renown douchiness and that alone might make it hard for some people to see that film.

  73. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Regarding The Social Network versus Let Me In, according to Boxofficemojo TSN will receive a significantly wider release than LMI.

    Interesting timing isn’t it IO? Apparently Zuckerberg initially wanted the donation to be anonymous. Someone must have told him making it public would be wise. Yeah sure it’s great but writing the check is the easy part, and you’re right, he does have a lot more amending to do.

  74. Kevin Schoonover says:

    As I wrote, IO: “They probably won’t affect the box office much. They still don’t frequent cinemas very often regardless of the product, but it’s not because they don’t know what social networking is.”

    I s’pose I just don’t know what you meant by, “…and let us not even get started with the older folks.” Since when are they ever a box office factor — GREEK WEDDING? LITTLE MS? Please clarify.

  75. Ira Parks says:

    This’ll sound weird, but I revisit this thread once or twice a month. There’s just something about it.

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