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
What will be interesting to see is if Potter can pass it both domestically and total boxoffice. It will definitely be close. .
I want to see TF3 again but in 2-d to compare the action to the other two films. Also want to compare screen brightness levels. It’s nice having $6 matinees in my area.
Yes DP, three billion dollar worldwide grossers completely make up for a 10% decrease in domestic box office this year and the collapse of the DVD market. You tell those analysts!
Isn’t that standard digital ecosystem trending though?
The raw number of “hits” increases, and the magnitude of those hits increases, but the proportion of “bombs” also increases because the number of new entrants is growing faster than demand, and dollar growth of the market comparatively slows due to an influx of low-priced competitors.
No one said that Ethan. The DVD market is a completely different issue.
And the drop was 20% a few months ago… so yeah, cutting that in half – assuming your number is right – is significant.
But most importantly, the idiocy of the “sky is falling” crowd is that they react to a series of months as a trend, no matter whether it makes sense or not. And this SLUMP made no sense. The 3 billion movies in under 8 months speaks to that. So do the mid-range successes.
The question is, what happened to the mega-hits or even the big hits from December – April 15. And the answer does not exactly require a brain surgeon.
If you look at that period, just as in the fake slump of ’86, it’s simply a lack of a few huge cash generators that had been evident the year before. This is not a business that can be measured like grocery sales. A very, very small percentage of ticket buyers go to the movies habitually and will spend regardless of what’s playing. The big movies that drive the huge numbers are events unto themselves, not paint-by-numbers moments when you can assume something is wrong with the industry because a half-dozen films over 5 months failed to perform to hopes and prayers.
But in the meanwhile, the excessive negativity does more damage because not only does it argue a falsehood, but it gets sticky because people don’t like admitting they were wrong on trend pieces.
This is why we are still listening to the ticket sales stupidity.
The industry has had a MAJOR dip. And now, it is nearing an even trend line again. It wasn’t not dipping when box office was up… it’s not OVER when box office is down.
It’s an argument for children, old men, and weak journalists.
We’re in a summer, so far, with 2 likely money losers (aka “bombs”) out of 20 releases so far. And that is with DVD so far off.
It’s a remarkably positive trend, though a lot of people are still finding themselves chasing from behind based on what the business was 5 or 10 years ago. That business is over. And the studios have already moved on.
Of course, if you are an indie counting on theatrical, you’re fucked. But that’s a different conversation.
I wouldn’t say falling almost 10% year over year in mid-July is much better than 20% pre-summer. Raw dollar wise, we are still 450 million behind last year, and we have now seen the release of what most analysts thought were 2 of the 3 biggest films of the year, with one wildly under-performing though it will still turn a profit because of merch.
I think it’s more than indies and a leaner schedule and all that. There are two major studios, Sony and Fox, that have had what seem like ridiculously weak slates. Big Sony/Screen Gems, which I guess can blame the collapse of “Spidey 4,” will have grossed $130 million this summer once this weekend is over. 130 million! Fox is at $213 million, and is taking a big roll of the dice by relying on apes and Glee as their only releases till October.
Btw I country three big money losers (Priest, Green Lantern and this weekend’s way-over-budget Zookeeper) out of 20…with several others likely to be slightly under water (Something Borrowed, Judy Moody, Monte Carlo, Larry Crowne) through their theatrical runs.
Again, Ethan, you are talking as though everything is the same all the time and should be expected to be.
If Sony didn’t choose to release a tentpole this summer, why do you get to decide the world has come to an end? Don’t you think that’s a little bizarre?
Fox had 2 tentpole events. X-Men did okay, though not sensationally. Apes will be what it will be. Popper’s is a flop. And Monte Carlo won’t lose money. What is your comfort zone, as you decide what they HAD to do?
And the only liekly money loser in the four “slightly underwater” titles you mention will be Judy Moody. And it won’t lose much.
THAT’s what it’s about, Ethan… not your idea (or anyone else’s) about what the business SHOULD be.
You have to learn to read between the lines of what IS, not what you decided it SHOULD BE by some sense of everything have some alleged standard of inevitability.
It’s the same crap about how great Paramount was doing when it was mostly releasing OPM (Other People’s Movies). They did okay. But just being a distributor is a different business. Big grosses are relevant, but the numbers don’t mean the same thing.
I don’t think the summer should be about conservative gains and conservative titles DP, as Sony and Fox seem to be doing, but that’s just me. Yes it’s nice that movie budgets have gone down, and studios seem to be aiming lower domestically as they spend less, but I’d argue that’s just a reflection of the collapse of the home market leading to a plunge in revenue, rather than a new-found sense of thriftiness. (only two titles have cleared $50 million in sales this year. By this time last year and in 2009, seven had….with two of those last year over $150 million. )
The world coming to an end is not what I meant with Sony DP…but this is the weakest summer by a major studio in years. The good news is they can still turn it around.
With Fox, I obviously don’t decide what they HAVE to do. It just seems like they have been very half-hearted with their releases lately, and I have a hard time seeing shareholders pleased with the fact that the studio made more last year by Valentine’s Day than it has this year by mid-July.