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
Looks like Judy Moody’s having a totally bummer summer…or not, according to the updated front page. But getting within spitting distance of a certain Wimpy Kid is never gonna happen.
“Midnight in Paris expanded 542% in screen count and 118% in gross. Screen count will likely start dropping next weekend, but $25m is possible.”
Poland, why are you still being such a dumbass? It’s like deep inside you know all of the predictions you’ve made about the film very completely wrong and now, istead of admitting it, you are going out of your way to downplay the movie’s reception and perfomance. You are out of touch.
It is obvious to anyone but you that Midnight in Paris is going to do A LOT bettert han that. 35 million minimum – 50 million probable.
I am calling you out, officially on here, Midnight in Paris will get to AT LEAST $35 million.
“Screen count will likely start dropping next weekend”.
Wow you really one one rotten individual Poland. The movie is doing great – has a terrific word of mouth, the third best per theater average in the top ten – and that’s your justification for it only making another 11 million dollars in its entire run?
Bullshit, Poland.
MiP is sold out, or close to it, at literally every fucking show in L.A. And when I finally got in to see it, it got the loudest ovation of anything I’ve seen in a decade, easily. Yeah, it’s a TOTAL Lammle’s/Landmark type movie that’ll play better in big cities, but the people who see it are positively RABID about it.
It’s funny, Proman. I now feel comforted when you scream about how wrong I am.
No one said the film isn’t doing well. But that is how trajectory works in screen count. It may go up to 1200, but this weekend was the likely peak.
How does this make me a bad person?
Worth noting, Midnight In Paris’ per screen average for the weekend in 944 screens is higher than any weekend in Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s entire run, despite the fact that VCB never went wider than 726 screens. Match Point got higher averages only when it was hovering around 300-400 screens but not when it expanded to 500.
Both those films finished up at just a touch above $23 million, so I think it’s a forgone conclusion that MiP will beat that number pretty handily.
BREAKING NEWS:
I finally saw JANE EYRE. It was a pretty superb adaptation with great atmosphere and two top-notch leading performances. Great stuff.
JKill: Yeah Jane Eyre was good but then in one scene Fassdouche shows up with this RIDICULOUS fucking PILGRIM HAT, and I was like what UGH I can’t believe a guy in a PILGRIM HAT is getting Wasivagska.
That hat was epically ridiculous. The Olden Times were fucking stupid.
I think Todd Phillips said it all.
When I wrote about rooting by media, this is what I meant…
“Weekend Box Office: Super 8 Pulls $38 Million, Beats X-Men: First Class for Number One Slot”
If you weren’t thinking much about box office, would you know Super 8 beat weekend two of x-men?
Loved MiP and that fact that it’ll be Woody’s best grosser in 25 years. So DP was wrong — who would think that any Woody Allen movie, however well reviewed and received, would even get close to 25 mil? Here in a small southern market the theater was half full at a Friday afternoon matinee. Good show, Woodman.
Couldn’t you come up with anything lamer, Chrisitan?
Tree of Life continues to do well/sell-out shows it seems. Masterwork. Best film of the year by a country mile. Doubt anything can touch it.
It’s a Lazy Sunday, DP. Next time.
Lex, I remember two different Rochester hats. The wicker one he wears when Jane returns from her aunt or the very high, dark one. I’m assuming you’re referring to the latter.
The costume design was actually really interesting, in that it felt like they went more accurate to the period instead of trying to make it look cool, lavish and extravagant, which seems to be the default setting for this type of period movie.
Another crazy hold for “Bridesmaids.”
I talked to several people in the last two days who haven’t even heard of Super 8. I think when people think of it as a throwback movie, I believe the idea of it playing for 8 months and gathering steam would really benefit Super 8. But alas, I don’t think that will happen.
By the way, has there ever been a summer where no big studio release was considered a flat-out bomb? So far, the big releases haven’t been disasters. Yes, it’s early, but that will be a story, right?
Good thought, Grady. It’s kinda crazy. Green Lantern, Cowboys & Aliens and Apes are really the only major titles that have any chance of flopping. Zookeeper may have been expensive. But I am thinking they may run the board, if the bar isn’t put too high. A few small titles could miss.
A very interesting summer. The Niche is now The Business. (Another thing commenters used to whine about.) Waiting for a single “slump” writer to acknowledge.
Green Lantern is the disaster you seek. It will bomb big time and all the media will fall over themselves with trend pieces.
You really are being strangely stubborn about Midnight in Paris, Poland. It’ll be closing in on $25 million in a week’s time.
I feel like even the “bomb” version of Green Lantern is opening to 40+ and finishing up over 100. In other words, Wild Wild West type of “bomb,” not Pluto Nash type of actual bomb.
what’s the tracking on Green Lantern, Bad Teacher, and Transformers 3? Someone out there must have these deets…
Easy prediction here that amazingly, NO ONE has made yet: Midnight In Paris WILL get nominated for Best Picture, bank on it!
If we’re doing super early Oscar picks, right now i’d say 3 films that will get best picture noms:
Tree of Life
Midnight in Paris
Take Shelter
Acting nomination for Michael Shannon.
JKill, I meant the WICKER ONE. I guess it’s more of an Amish hat than a pilgram hat, but Fassbender looks like SUUUUUUUCH a douche in that straw idiocy on top of his head. In fairness, it would’ve hobbled any actor.
MY DREAM IN LIFE is to make a Western or Victorian drama where I just dress everyone like rappers and Victoria’s Secret models, because OLD FASHIONS AREN’T SEXY.
Lex – does ICP’s movie BIG MONEY RUSTLAS fit the bill?
They still wear chaps and cowboy hats and stuff, at least according to the trailer I remember. I want ZERO period detail. ZERO. No hats, no chaps, no prostitutes in marm outfits. They can maybe have horses, but the saloon should be playing heavy metal and the chicks should all have cell phones.
Lex:
Your dream nearly came true (…had Kevin Kline not stolen the role originally intended for MC Search).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpEfW-R9gDo
I’ll tell you this for free DP. APES will tank (relative to Burton’s) and GREEN LANTERN will not be the $200m smash that so many are expecting. A very messy and confused campaign. GL was the only comic book character I followed when I was 8 and I have zero interest in seeing this, even for nostalgia boost. I wish COWBOYS would tank (came from a soulless place) but I think it’s going to be the hit of the summer.
DP I think your refusal to ever say you were wrong (until months/ years later) frustrates people as much Leahnz does to you when she refuses to acknowledge your point of view.
Yeah in a world where most Comics are lucky to sell five figures. Green Lantern sells six consistently. Seriously gl is the comic book film a shitload of people have been waiting for, and doubting it’s earning potential is rather foolish.
Semi-related: What is the last use of CG that was as OFF-PUTTING as that thing where they shrink Chris Evans down to puny size for the early going of Captain America?
And that’s the rare comic book adaptation I’m fairly stoked for, but that shit is SERIOUSLY DISTURBING in the trailer, creepy in the way that people complained about Ben Button or usually say about mo-cap.
(Cue IO aggressively telling me I’m wrong.)
IO not sure sales mean anything in terms of boxoffice. I can name 20 bestsellers that tanked. Look I hope it’s a good film but nothing i have seen makes it look even the slightest bit entertaining. In fact it looks like some weird bunch of outtakes from a Phantom menace spin-off. Want a gentlemen’s wager on how it does?
I’m trying to keep my wick dry for another week or two, but yes, Midnight could be nommed
What wrong is frustrating you so, Doc?
JBD you should really not speak so fervently. The tracking on Green Lantern is extremely high. You may not care for it, but it has penetrated the zeitgeist in a very very strong way.
Green Lantern as a comic has been around since 1940, and never gotten a movie or solo TV show. There may be more of an appetite than we think.
Green Lantern is one of the least interesting comic book characters ever.
DP must “feel a wave” of people not going to see ‘midnight in paris’
Wow. Leah… that was pretty stupid too.
Apropos of nothing: I’m glad Mark Cuban’s team beat the Heat.
Speaking of zeitgeists, you know it’s a different geist for a different zeit when Mark Cuban is the guy people are rooting for. There’s always another villain just around the corner to make the last one seem not so bad. I wonder how much Prilosec (or whatever) David Stern had to take before he handed Donald Carter the trophy which Carter then promptly handed to Cuban.
What a great night for Cleveland. I wish Mark Cuban had bought the Cubs.
Don I acknowledge that awareness is super duper high just think the film may not hit the expected boxoffice highs. I just said I doubt it’ll do over $200m. You must know this b.o minutiae – how many films don’t come close to their tracking in terms of big summer releases? Does it happen to 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 etc
LYT. Two words. THE SPIRIT. Next please.
“DP I think your refusal to ever say you were wrong (until months/ years later) frustrates people as much Leahnz does to you when she refuses to acknowledge your point of view.”
Although I know what you mean, this is an odd comment to make about a post that begins with the words “I was wrong last week.”
Just because people are aware of Green Lantern, does that mean people want to see it? Every preview I’ve seen looks TERRIBLE. At the same time, I was completely taken aback by how good (and mostly practical) Captain America looked.
Seriously, you would assume that the budgets for Cap and Thor were similar, but Cap has scope (and thankfully a lack of dutch tilts).
And yes, Lex. The shrinking effect on Chris Evans was creepy as shit.
DP wrote:
“When I wrote about rooting by media, this is what I meant…
‘Weekend Box Office: Super 8 Pulls $38 Million, Beats X-Men: First Class for Number One Slot’
If you weren’t thinking much about box office, would you know Super 8 beat weekend two of x-men?”
The media always writes that way about box office. If the opening of, say, Resident Evil 5 beat the 4th weekend of a huge hit, like Fast Five, the headlines would say “Resident Evil Sequel Races Past Fast Five for #1 Spot at the Box Office.” That’s the way the media always covers box office. Has nothing to do with Super 8 or an agenda.
Also, groupthink my ass. My wife and I loved Super 8 and have recommended it to all friends and family. If it drops quickly I don’t think that means people didn’t love it. Nearly everyone who saw Scott Pilgrim loved it passionately, but it had no word of mouth. Sometimes the audience is limited. Sometimes things just don’t catch on. Sometimes everyone who wants to see it does so and there are no legs. Doesn’t mean people who do see it don’t like it.
nobody has any tracking info, huh?
I think the only summer movie you could call a flat-out bomb so far was Priest, and if you believe what they say, it had a higher production budget than Super 8.
X-Men: First Class looks like it will make less than Thor worldwide.
It’s interesting because as Captain America looms next month i wonder what the cap on Superhero films set in earlier eras could be. Is a 1940’s superhero film going to fare about as well as a 1960’s film.
Then again, America seems to have an endless patience for movies that feature Nazi’s as Villains.
And yes, the shrinking of Chris Evans is creepy as shit. Stupid choice. why not just go the Tobey Maguire/Spiderman route. Get a shot of him looking skinny, then a shot of him bulked up.
On the contrary, I think the shrunken Chris Evans effect is cool as shit. Sure, it’s odd seeing a familiar face on that body, but the effect is impressive. And it’s true to the comic. Unless Evans pulled a Bale-in-THE MACHINIST move, there’s no way he could sell the pre-transformation Steve Rogers. The mass audience may not care, but even if it’s just a sop to die-hard Cap fans, I think it was the right choice.
Is Cave of Forgotten Dreams on VOD? It looks like it will end up being the highest grosser for IFC since Touching The Void and I didn’t know if that might be due to the fact that it didn’t have any home viewing or that people are deciding to see it in theaters. I know the 3.5 million gross seems small compared to all the other numbers we talk about but for the relativly tiny IFC it must feel like a Juggernaut.
And the Oscar talk above regarding MIP begs the question “Who is the best supporting actress winner?” Does McAdams or Cottilard give a perf that will make the cut? It seems unfathomable that Woody would have a hit, get a BP as well as his semi-annual screenplay nod, and not get someone in the sup Actress slot as well.
yancy, i agree it’s cool looking, but it is so obviously a CG effect, that it takes you out of the moment.
When trying to create a reality, no matter how absurd, even in a world of superheroes and amazing feats, the audience has to be drawn in that this world is conceivable. Taking a somewhat recognizable actor and shrinking him for the first 20 minutes of the movie with digital trickery is not going to help with credibility.
You could have had him skinny, not in shape, and had the same transformation, or given him a gimpy leg. Something that would prevent him from enlisting but not requiring Frodo Baggins style digital and visual trickery.
To me, it’s a bad call. It’s glaring.
If he was “just” skinny and not in shape, you don’t have the same character. Ditching the core of the character – now that’s a bad call.
“but not requiring Frodo Baggins style digital and visual trickery.”
Because that destroyed the credibility of LOTR!
hcat if you’re thinking about seeing cave of forgotten dreams, do it in 3D. Few other movies ask you to do it so compellingly – it has this circus element of paying to just look behind the curtain to see something you can’t see anywhere else. Highly recommend it just for that, but it is also an excellent document of Herzog’s views on art, filtered through his senses of humor and history.
By the way, has there ever been a summer where no big studio release was considered a flat-out bomb? So far, the big releases haven’t been disasters. Yes, it’s early, but that will be a story, right?
I think it’s a tad premature to call 2011 the summer without any major bombs, Grady. There simply haven’t been enough (big) movies released yet. Interestingly, the lower-tier (i.e., non-tentpole movies unless you’re counting “Bridesmaids”) releases have either flat-out tanked (“Judy Moody”), underperformed (“Something Borrowed,:” “Priest”) or kinda/sorta lived up to (extremely) modest expectations (“Jumping the Broom”).
Looking ahead, I see “Monte Carlo” pulling another “Judy M” (Fox is giving it the “Like Mike” slot which isn’t particularly reassuring), “Larry Crowne” disappointing a la “The Terminal” (is Tom Hanks still a “movie star”? is Julia Roberts?), “Green Lantern” doing “Green Hornet” biz at best, “Trannies,” “Potter” and “Cars” doing pretty much what’s expected, “Horrible Bosses” and “Bad Teacher” doing “NSA”/”Limitless”-style “sleeper” biz, “Friends w/ Benefits” matching “Something Borrowed,” “Winnie the Pooh” regretting it didn’t go directly to dvd, “Crazy Stupid Love” performing like “The 40-Year Old Virgin” did six summers ago. I’d make a projection on “Captain America” and “Cowboys & Aliens” but, quite frankly, I’d be afraid that my utter lack of interest in either would seriously skew my predix. For now, let’s just say “G.I. Joe” and (reallly? seriously??) “Hancock” bucks. Or not, lol.
PaulMD… you kinda make my point, actually.
You are unreserved in your love of the film. Congrats.
If many of the critics who pushed how great the film was as unabashedly, I wouldn’t be talking about hedging.
But read the reviews. There is a lot of hedging. I’m not making something up because I don’t LOVE the film. I am reading what’s written… and I am seeing that much of what I think is in the very same reviews trumpeting the glory of the coming of Super 8.
That would be hedging, Bob.
Make your point about media coverage or hedging? Cause again, the media always writes box office headlines without accounting for how long a movie has been in release. “Hangover II Destroys Fast Five.” Well yeah, obviously, the latter has been out for weeks.
I have read reviews DP, so try not to be quite so condescending. Plenty of people genuinely love the movie. We disagree about hedging. I am not seeing it the way you are.
hcat.. while I agree that in a 10 film race – and only in a 10 film race – Midnight is a likely nomineee, as it will be for screenplay, there is no acting performance in the film that will be seriously in contention for a nomination. No one does nearly enough or leaves a big enough imprint to get there.
I would have imagined, in the early going, that Zelda or Ernest would have had a shot… but they end up out of the picture. And while I personally love what The Schnoz does with Dali, it’s barely a cameo.
I think Fox would be crazy happy if Monte Carlo did Like Mike numbers. There are different expectations for a film of that niche audience, it would have to make Take Me Home Tonight, MacGruber money for it to be considered a flop. Really anything over 10 for Monte Carlo and 20 for Pooh would be considered a success. If there is any film I am rooting to die quickly it would be Smurfs, but looking at how Chipmunks and even Yogi performed I will probably not get my wish.
As for Hanks and Roberts, I would say yes they are both still movie stars even though they no longer the biggest names in the industry. Even if you had an uncanny ability to choose nothing but great projects, your star power dims a bit with age (and then has the possibility of coming back once you move from older to just plain old ala Jack Lemmon and Clint). Hanks has moved into the That’s Life, Dead Pool portion of his career where the people that have watched him for years will give his films a chance but the younger crowd, the ones who buy the most movie tickets, who were still kids during his biggest successes will show disinterest. I don’t think Larry Crowne will hit a 100 million but am not sure if it really has to to be considered a success. Its counterprogramming, as is Monte Carlo, and in a way Crazy Stupid Love, and shouldn’t be judged by the same yardstick as some $250 million explosion extravaganza.
I love Hanks, but Larry Crowne just doesn’t look very good. It certainly doesn’t look like anything I want to pay $10 a ticket for to see in theaters. It’s going to have a tough time finding an audience in July.
Monte Carlo can easily do Sister of the Traveling Pants numbers, can’t it?
Is there some petition I can sign to keep Cuban out of baseball? What a Faustian bargain you people wishing against the Heat made.
Holy cow, do I feel alone. I didn’t care for Tree of Life. I’m not talking the period it featured but something conceptually felt rather dated. I can’t put my finger on it. Like I think if I saw this in the 80s I might’ve dug it more. Maybe. I don’t know. I need to see Mid in Paris before the gushing sets up too unreasonable expectations.
Movieman, you’re right. But even getting through May without a real car wreck is a pleasant surprise.
Judy Moody isn’t an outright tank because of how many people are splitting the pie in various ways and because it was the first weekend of a kids movie and writing it off when all it needs, really, is $20 million and a bit to be profitable is still possible.
Neither “Something Borrowed” or “Priest” has underperformed in any significant way… unless you’ve been sucked into thinking that every Love American Style episode now needs to hit $100m to be a success… or that the long-on-the-shelf Priest isn’t a minor miracle, especially considering foreign, which now puts it at over $73 million.
And yes, “Jumping the Broom” lived up to modest expectations. I don’t know why anyone would expect more of that niche and that kind of film. And the studio did not.
Yes, there is plenty of room for wreckage moving forward. But Grady is right… so far, shockingly solid, if not spectacular.
With Pirates nearing $900 million and both Thor and Hangover 2 nearing $450m each, the only big movie that’s really underperformed is Panda 2 ($330m and counting) and there is some sense that X-Men:FC should be bigger.
And speaking of Crazy Stupid Love, if it does perform to 40YOV numbers, it will be considered a huge success. Everytime I see the trailer the anticipation grows simply because I think the script would have to be exceptional to get such a strong cast. No one outside of Carrel and rising star Stone is a big BO draw but having Gosling, Moore and Tomei (who keeps finding such interesting work in the recent years I always perk up when I see her in a preview) gives it a level of credibility in my eyes.
At this point, four days before release, didn’t Thor and Fast Five and Super 8 and First Class already have at least a dozen reviews, even if they were from friendly sources? Green Lantern has nothing as of now, not a single one. Is that a bad sign, or am I reading too much into it?
I just watched a clip of Green Lantern…in it, some evil force was throwing some evil shit at a woman, and Green Lantern stopped it by using his magic ring to use green light to create a catapult to fire the sludge back at the creature.
Jesus.
Dave, I’d actually argue that despite the delays, Priest is a pretty big failure in the Screen Gems department, at least domestically. You’ve taken note of how good Screen Gems usually is at selling these things, so you must know that $30 million domestic for one of their movies is kind of a clunk, by their standards; they usually gross more and cost less.
And I don’t see why the delays are a big factor; it’s not like the Screen Gems target audience is all that discerning. I mean, Priest did turn out to really suck, but it didn’t suck (much) more than any number of Screen Gems movies that made in the 40-70 range.
Still, true that it’s not really expensive or high-profile enough to be an all-out flop.
Monte Carlo looks like a potential bomb (although, again, not that much money is at stake) to me. It’s got a weird cast that’s semi-teen and semi-older, and looks more like an innocuous Lizze Maguire-style movie for 10-year-old girls. I feel like movies specifically aimed at that crowd, especially in live action, often fail to clear $15 million or so. But maybe that audience will feel underserved and turn up.
DP, are people already reading too much into Super 8’s opening weekend? I’ve read that $36 million is a failure because of how much was spent on marketing it. Deadline is asking if other filmmakers will follow its lead in terms of keeping more secrets in trailers/TV spots due to the great opening. And there is the middle ground, people saying the number is OK or respectable, not great or a disaster. I think this aligns with what I mentioned above about how the media blares box office headlines about who finished first with no context or mention of how many weeks other movies have been in release.
Paul… no, I don’t often see something like “Hangover II beats Fast Five.”
I don’t recall seeing “Thor beats Fast Five” as the hed.
The reason we saw “Super 8 beats X-Men” is because there is nothing good to write about the Super 8 number. It’s fine. It shouldn’t upset anyone. But it’s a middle of the pack opening. So we got a lot of people speculating about its long legs and then silliness like comparing it to a 2nd weekend of X-Men… though a week before, it looked like the number would be smaller and behind X-Men. But that’s something to explore in copy, not in a headline because the stat is irrelevant.
Yes, there are all kinds of stupid headlines, especially about box office, which has a lot of people who are truly ignorant about it writing on it, as everyone now has to pretend to be interested in everything.
But if you can’t see rooting, I can’t help you.
And if you love the film, that doesn’t mean I think you are sucked into groupthink. These are not mutually exclusive issues.
I have to say, I find it truly shocking when intelligent people, such as yourself and Leah, turn basic social phenomenon into something personal. Has anyone grown up and not seen a room of people sway in one direction or anything, not necessarily based on objective standards they normally hold?
Should we pretend to see Sarah Palin, from the right or the left, as the sum of her parts or as the greater thing she is? Shouldn’t we be able to admit that there is something interesting and a little scary about a person who can maintain this much support and be so obviously underqualified and at time, plain out stupid? Seriously… she makes Bush 2 look like Reagan. But she is clearly compelling.
How is politics relevant to the Super 8 discussion? Because the illusion we maintain amongst critics/journalists is that this is a pure business. But the critical community is like any other community.
Just because its insulting to say that Republicans are supporting a fool for president, I know that many of them (this is where I would put the movie critic establishment) just see her as their best shot in a presidential season that they are likely to lose. They also – not unlike the Democrats, though it could be argued they do it more brazenly – will lie about and parse anything they can against the left (Obama right now). But is that passion or insight or simply business?
Of course, there are some nut jobs… as there are critics who are nut jobs. And there are some true believers… as there are critics who are true believers. And there are rationalists, hysterics, morons and every other color under the thinking rainbow.
And I bet, like critics, most of them think they are above assholes like me daring to suggest they are anything other than Aristotelian virgins sitting high on the mountain contemplating art. Especially when they, personally, really, really liked the movie.
And the joke is, amongst all the finger-pointing at me, that over next month, I will talk to 20 or 30 of my kind who will posit the same notion about one movie or another… just not the one THEY loved.
Of course, there is a popular argument in here that I mix and match facts and my feelings about films. And there is certainly an argument about me leaning. But in the end, there is business and there is my feelings… and sometimes the twain shall meet… but even in the same piece, I will separate the two minds on a film. I don’t need to like a film to project it as or to see it as a big hit.
When these fights seem to take place in here is when I hit a nerve with a film that some people LOVE, for whatever reason, and I diminish it somehow and people see it as a personal attack.
And of course, as your cruise director, I get every misstep I have ever made thrown at me, and most of what I get right is forgotten or “irrelevant.” But that’s just MY ego talking… even if it’s true.
Fight for what you love… attack what you hate… understand that at least 40% is likely to feel differently whatever you say.
And tell the truth, as you see it, about how things work. Be open to the opposing ideas of others, when they are offered – “You’re a fucking moron” is not an offer of an idea that can be acted on – and try to navigate the many variations of “facts” that are floating out there.
That’s the gig.
I think you are right most of the time David, which is why I have been reading you since the beginning and never really get into these kinds of disagreements with you. It’s not even that I think you are totally wrong here. I don’t. I agree with you that groupthink exists. I agree with most of what you wrote above. I just don’t think it really happened with Super 8 to the degree you do. I saw it way more with Fast Five and the many damning with faint praise reviews I read. “Not as terrible as I expected.” “The best of the series.” But I have pestered you on this because I find it interesting and I care about what you think.
Also, sample headlines:
“Thor Storms Past Fast Five at the Box Office.”
“Thor Beats Rapidly Falling Fast Five.”
“Thor Drops Hammer on Fast Five.”
Thanks for those insane, stupid heds on Thor v Fast Five, Paul. Point heard.
And yes, people are reading too much into the Super 8 opening. The tale will be told next weekend. But we are all opening day hysterics now.
As for Deadline, they are as much in Par’s pocket as AICN is… in much the same way. Choosing where to build your relationships with journalists who are bendable is smart business by Par.
What did happen, so far, on Super 8, is that they improved on what tracking told the industry. As I have said many times before, they are excellent marketers and adjust to what it happening… they don’t just keep pushing the same nut up the hill. In the case of Super 8, they got off the nostalgia a lot in the last week and pushed the action movie… lots of the train and scary moments.
Now it’s up to the sampling group to push it along hard, to reject it, or to take the normal middling road. And no one knows what that answer will be. And Paramount folks are waaaaay smarter than to listen to the media and rely on our enthusiasm or rejection. They stay focused. Not every studio does.
Insane and stupid, I agree. The box office headlines are usually insane, stupid, and misleading. And re: Deadline/Par, makes sense. I think I recall you mentioning that before. And beating the tracking seems to be getting a lot more play than the fact that they spent a whole lot of $ to get to that number.
Ill have to go back and read the origin issue of Captain America, but I never remember Steve Rogers being small. He was thin, sickly but he wasnt a short, miniscule guy. The Super Soldier serum put mass on him but I dont recall the original origin story portraying him as tiny. just skinny and frail.
But Anghus the original origin of Cap may not be the one they are using. Perhaps it has been retold in the 50 (or is it 70?) years of its history and they are going with a nineties Cap Extreme version or something or other. The thing I find ironic about fans of the comic stating that they must stay true to the source is that the source has been retconned so much during its history there is not much purity to stay true to. For me this is true with the upcoming Green Lantern, who I do not remember as an affable Ryan Reynolds type, but a much more driven humorless hero.
From the Marvel wiki…
My complaint has NOTHING to do with staying true to the source material. I am not a fanboy who gets upset when they change things. I have no problems with filmmakers making changes to the material to make it work for film.
My problem with Frodo Rogers is that it so obviously CG that it ends up being jarring. Maybe the final shots wont look so weird. But in the trailers ive seen it looks stupid, and perhaps could have been done without CG magic, or done with less obvious CG magic
They could have saved a few million by just putting Jesse Eisenberg in a blond wig for the first 15 minutes of the movie.
Sorry Anghus, did not mean to imply that you were a fanboy and that you were complaining about pre-serum Rogers being too short. Just taking the oppurtunity afforded by your comment to state that it seems like each character has had their origin stories redone a couple times over the years.
And youre absolutely right. Origin stories and characters have been relauched and reimagined a ridiculous number of times. Mixing and matching for film seems fairly common for movie adaptations
JBD – Tracking is not actually designed to guess an opening number. It is meant as a tool to marketing departments to see how their campaigns are working or not working. The whole thing has been bastardized.
That said, the tracking companies do put their guesses on the tracking, setting up this game.
Also, everyone seems to think they are brilliant at reading tracking… also untrue.
Tracking is not very good at hitting younger ticket buyers, older ticket buyers, or ethnic ticket buyers. When a film is “inside the box,” tracking tends to be very effective. When it is niche to one of its weak survey groups, it is less effective.
good god, did you just drag me back into your delusion with a comment on my intelligence, DP?
there has been NO MORE group think re: the super 8 reviews than any other movie on the face of the earth. you are seeing what you want to see in the reviews because YOU DON’T LIKE THE MOVIE and can’t understand how critics can point out flaws in film they generally like and recommendd. reviewers submit positive reviews with caveats/criticisms of the film ALL THE TIME (excellent example: avatar. the difference is, you like avatar. where was all the ‘groupthink’ carping from you on that one? oh that’s right, there wasn’t any. because it’s nonsense).
there is no more “hedging” in ‘super 8’ reviews (and i’ve read a SHITLOAD of them) than in any other film that has been reviewed as ‘good’ and not ‘great’. you are seeing what you want to see in the reviews, then cherry-picking bits out of context to support your deeply-flawed premise. super 8 reviews have been, by and large ‘good’, not great. the reviews of fast five and x-men are similarly riddled with the exact same kind of what you absurdly call ‘hedging’, pointing out flaws in a movie one still likes and recommends. some people love S8 unabashedly, probably the majority like it with reservations, some people don’t like it, which is exactly what the reviews reflect. EXACTLY. if groupthink exists it’s ALWAYS in play, it’s a fluid dynamic, the NORM, not some tiny exception/mass delusion that has happened just for S8, for some sinister reason. you’ve fabricated a construct to suit your point of view by twisting things to support your ‘suspicion’, which is ALL you have, a feeling.
you could make the exact same ‘gropthink’ argument for MULTIPLE movies, but you’ve decided to zero in on S8 because you don’t think it’s a good movie and it bugs the shit out of you that other critics don’t similarly pan it because it has flaws, simple as that. your entire premise is unprovable, not supported by any facts, and as i stated before, if you LIKED S8 this entire thing would not be a NON-ISSUE. because it is a non-issue.
flaws in a movie one likes: simple to point out, perhaps briefly annoying and easy to overlook in the greater glow.
flaws in a movie one doesn’t like: deal-breakers
you fall into the latter camp. simple as that. get over it.
anghus: Point taken on Rogers not being short in the comic; I was only thinking about the scrawniness. But I guess our disagreement is about the CGI. It’s doesn’t look that bad to me. Of course I’ve also come around to the idea that even so-so CGI is often more realistic than most practical f/x, at least in the area of living things. I suppose a Captain America film in the 40s (or several decades beyond, for that matter) would’ve had to cast a skinny lookalike as pre-Cap Rogers, or a slight guy who could wear padded suits after the change. Or just ignore that part of the story (actually, there WAS a Captain America serial in the 40s, but he wasn’t even Steve Rogers; he was a D.A. or something).
I assume the movie just puts a digitally altered Chris Evans head on another actor’s body (a la Ben Button, as mentioned). I’d be curious to know if someone who had no idea of what Chris Evans looks like would even notice that an effect was used. Maybe so, but it’s funny how CGI seems to make it harder for some folks to suspend their disbelief. It can get so close to realism, that the slight difference is magnified I guess. But as someone who grew up with “claymation” King Kongs and guys in Godzilla suits (and thought they were awesome and fun and charming), I just can’t get too bent out of shape over a few imperfections in CGI.
Yancy,
I think the trouble with CG in this case is that it is surrounded by a great deal of practical work that draws attention to the effect. If the same effect were used on Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern, no one would bat an eye. Also, the effect isn’t done as well as the old, very short Brad Pitt effects in Benjamin Button.
I find it stunning that in the Social Network, Armie Hammer’s head can be (to my eyes) perfectly grafted onto a body double in a movie that has awkward and unconvicing CG cold breath.
Practical effects, even done poorly, can have a charm and a performance that I just haven’t seen in CG.
Point taken. I may be more prone to griping than the average film fan, and others not find Frodo Rogers as jarring as I do.
how exactly does frodo equate to cg puny steve rogers, anghus? don’t know about how mr. punyverse steve rogers is achieved, but i do know how frodo was. not getting the comparison.
Boy am I excited about MONTE CARLO.
“Welcome to Arclight, sir. How may I help you?”
“Uh, one for MONTE CARLO, please.”
“Okay, where would you like to sit?”
“The masturbating section, please.”
ZING.
When I saw the Captain America trailer, I figured if I didn’t know that in reality Chris Evans didn’t look like that, I’d be fooled. I thought it was a good job, at least from the one trailer I saw.
Also, they have a bigger hurdle than Social Network…as they’re sticking buff Chris Evans’ head on a little scrawny body that doesn’t look like him. While the guy they got to double Armie Hammer was a really good double for him…in wide shots they probably could have gotten away without even switching the face. You can be more subtle with those effects.
I agree about the cheesy breath effects though…why didn’t anyone just say this sucks, and leave them out? Did it HAVE to be sooo cold in that scene that they needed to have those cartoon breath balls floating around? It’s not like the scene was about them freezing to death and deciding to eat each other…we get it, they’re cold.
Keep repeating it, Leah. It’s not true, but if you keep repeating it, you can keep believing it.
I do love how you make these broad pronouncements as a way of telling me how I am overreaching. It’s funny.
You might do well to actually read what I write before losing your shit over it. We agree on much of what you are screaming at me about not believing.
lol, wait, you say “it’s not true” (with yet again nothing of substance to back it up) – what isn’t true, what i said above (great comeback to my assertion that you’re just making stuff up to suit yourself with no basis in reality: it’s not true!), or your silly ‘s8’ assertion in which you presume to know what people are thinking? if the latter then yes, right, it’s not.
and was i screaming? funny, i didn’t hear any screaming… but i’ve noticed how when anyone who points out when you’re being absurd in any sort of manner that’s emphatic rather than deferential or sniveling, they’re SCREAMING!!!! are you SCREAMING when you’re blatantly condescending and dismissive to people?
(also, i read what you wrote, silly billy, why would i have responded otherwise — and sorry to disappoint but my shit is still firmly in place in my rectum until later today when i have my second coffee)
Lex- Gotta admit with some (minor) embarrassment that I’m actually looking forward to “Monte Carlo” more than either “Larry” or “Transfat 3” July 4th weekend. I really liked Bezucha’s two previous films, and the young actresses look awfully perky and sweet in the (surprisingly not terrible) trailer. I’d love for it to be another “Traveling Pants” ’cause I really dug–sans embarrassment–those movies.
I don’t know, Dave. Did the $50-million bar for romcoms toplining Kate Hudson suddenly get lowered to $40-million? (On the basis of her most recent films, maybe so.) But from my vantage point, “Borrowed” felt like an underperformer. As did “Priest” which didn’t even gross as well as the typical Screen Gems dross, despite a considerably larger budget (and 3-D ticket prices). And I’m pretty sure the “Judy Moody” gang was hoping for another “Wimpy Kid”-type franchise. A $6-million opener ain’t gonna get it. Unless the thing turns out to be huge on dvd and they wind up doing it as a direct-to-video sort of thing.
Buzz on “Crazy Stupid” IS crazy stupid (thanks, EW). Also the trailer is–for me anyway–the best thing out there in trailer-land right now. It just has that “Virgin”-end-of-summer-sleeper-that-plays-thru-fall aura about it. The cast is flat-out spectacular (Gosling, Carell, Moore, “Easy A” chick, Tomei), no?
Totally blanked on “Smurfs.” Gawd! Let’s all pray that it’s another “Cats & Dogs 2” rather than a “Chipmunks” or even “Yogi.”
Yeah, I’m kinda secretly hoping my gf wants to see MONTE CARLO and “drags” me to it. I like that kind of thing when it’s well done, and I’ve written something that has a somewhat similar vibe (from what I can tell), so if it succeeds maybe it gives my producer a little more ammo when pitching it.
movieman: I liked the first TRAVELING PANTS movie a lot, too (still haven’t seen the second though).
I also can’t tell if or why Gomez, Meester and Cassidy would appear to be lifelong peers/frenemies, since each seems exponentially 5 years older than the next.
Usually I’d be Team Meester all the way, but sometimes in movies more than on Gossip Girl she has this weird weak chin. When are they going to start putting Taylor Momsen in movies?
Midnight in Paris will indeed be expanding further this weekend, adding nearly 100 theatres to bring its count to 1,038 (a record for Woody).