May 2, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
These ad nauseum franchise slum retreads —are endless.
The production looks very similar but obviously not a retread since, you know, the book was written decades before LOTR. Personally I’m looking for a more distinctive movie and not a catalog of visual and soundtrack references to the trilogy, but first previews and all that…
I’m on board with this, even though I still think Jackson’s the wrong director for it (and I think it’ll suffer because he basically backed into directing it). At the least it looks like they realized the tone of the book isn’t the tone of the LotR books. Good teaser.
I think Jackson’s actually better suited to The Hobbit than LOTR.
Gave me chills. Here’s hoping they arent way overpadding at 2 films.
DP – Wells is saying these two movies cost roughly $500M. Any truth to that?
when a series sucker like “On Stranger Tides” can gross a BILLION, this can certainly get that high as well.
I’m there. Looking forward to living in this world once again. It really is the true spirit of what a teaser is, it’s not the hard sell, it’s just a sample of what’s to come. I’m not disappointed at all and in fact surprised that after all the controversy surrounding this, that a year out, they’ve put together a more serviceable teaser trailer than even Dark Knight, which opens months before and had all its ducks in a row before the Hobbit did.
Don’t get me wrong, I liked the Dark Knight trailer too, but it was not as fluid and felt hastily put together, like they were a bit unsure as to what they were selling. maybe they should have held off on this, it’s not like they absolutely needed to do this, and put together a slam bang trailer and debut it at the Superbowl. Not like they need that either, but, the hype would have been unbelievable.
Which incidentally brings up a question, what upcoming movies do you guys think needs a wicked Superbowl spot to generate some much needed hype?
It will probably be a big year for studio ad buys for the superbowl this year with Avengers, Spiderman, Dark Knight and I cannot imagine Disney will pass up the chance to try to create some buzz around John Carter.
While I’m not a big fan of the Rings movies or the countless CGI armies rushing toward each other genre it created, I thought this was an exceptional trailer. As Mark said above, a lot more blue skies and a little slapstick shows that this will be in a different vein than the previous films. I was planning on skipping this when it came out but now it certainly has my interest.
How can people possibly root against this? You may not care for the cult that grew up around this franchise, but the films don’t deserve any real ire.
Orson Wells (sic), Tuck?
I have no idea what he’s saying or how much bile he’s throwing around this early in the game… but I would be surprised if the number isn’t close to that. I have no inside info and have not asked… and won’t. But given the expanding spends on the Rings movies, 300 makes sense.
If the numbers are similar to Rings, the films will be profitable in theatrical alone. I would also be surprised if WB doesn’t try to release the original trilogy in China, where it hadn’t played. And licensing will be much, much bigger, as the first series had a hard time making deals as the degree of success was completely underestimated.
The only thing I don’t like about that trailer is that tacked on “An Unexpected Adventure” subtitle thing. Seems like the studio tacked that on. Why not just “The Hobbit” and then “The Hobbit 2” or something.
And it looks like Jackson nailed the tone. Granted, I haven’t read the book or seen the cartoon since I was a shut-in preteen, but “The Hobbit” has always seemed more fairy tale and fantastical.
Looks AWFUL, hate these things, hate that terrible song, hate the MAN FEET and general distorted-feature pipe-smoking dance-a-jig-around-bonfire DORKINESS, etc etc…
But the funniest thing about the trailer is the throwaway tone of the first 30 seconds, which basically says, “Eh, here’s some more bullshit we forgot to tell you about the last time.”
Why would ANYONE like something so geeky and with so many disgusting, unattractive people with stupid names? It’s like a movie of 12 guys who look like Coltrane in Harry Potter…
Wouldn’t you rather your movies exclusively have GOOD LOOKING people?
I know this is off thread, but at least it’s related to grading a film by its trailer: a while ago I saw the trailers for Tintin and War Horse and predicted mega-bucks for them both (even declaring that a billion dollars was a cert for Spielberg). I saw War Horse this morning and was underwhelmed and don’t think it will be anywhere near the smash I suggested. Saw Tintin a while ago and the same goes for that.
Shows what I know.
Group sing-a-longs are so much fun. I’m with Lex. I nearly fell asleep halfway through. Not my cup of tea. Prometheus is more my speed. Now that looks incredible.
I wish GEEKS (UGH, who would ever want to be a geek?) were more excited about shit like SAFE HOUSE and CONTRABAND than they are about DORKY HEROES. It’s just so HUMBLE. So EARNEST. Wouldn’t you rather see black guys with guns and rap music?
It sounds like I’m being snide, but I’ve NEVER understood GEEKS, nor why anyone would think Middle Earth and Luke Skywalker or Krull or whatever was cooler than guns and cars and supermodels. It’s a mind set I will never, ever understand.
To me, the SPRAWLING LOS ANGELES of HEAT is the coolest thing ever put to film, what all movies should aspire to be. If a movie can be about INNER CITY CRIME and gangster shit with Natalie Portman in as cute bait, why would you ever wanna watch a movie about Hobbit feet? Why don’t geeks revere things like Scarface, New Jack City, Belly and Crank 2 like they like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? The ultimate expression of cinema is guns, violence, hot chicks, fast cars, taking place at night, and skyscrapers. What could be better? BIG CITIES AT NIGHT is literally the most exciting thing in the world… How can anyone like EARNEST MOVIES about superheroes better?
I know his vile spreading ways, I was just curious if there’s any veracity to the number. I’m looking forward to this, but Dark Knight Rises is the highest on my must-see list. Frankly, my interest in The Avengers faded considerably after Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America. If its in the same league as those movies, then it’ll be a somewhat enjoyable experience, but not much else.
The Hobbit keeping the Howard Shore score is likely the best (an obvious) decision.
Having not read the book, I’m assuming Smaug won’t show up until the second movie. Bummer.
“The only thing I don’t like about that trailer is that tacked on “An Unexpected Adventure” subtitle thing. Seems like the studio tacked that on. Why not just “The Hobbit” and then “The Hobbit 2″ or something.”
—
I’m showing my inner Tolkien geek here, but “An Unexpected Journey” (pt1) and “There and Back Again” (pt2) are taken straight from Bilbo’s title of his own book. So actually, from an adaptation point of view, they make a lot of sense. I admit if you’re not a fan who’s aware of this, they sound somewhat generic.
LexG… Oh never mind.
Jackson has a lot to atone for post-“Rings.”
First there was the bloated, interminable, indulgent “King Kong;” then the catastrophic botch that was “The Lovely Bones.”
I really, really want “The Hobbit” to be good, but the teaser trailer hasn’t sold me. Too much fey elf busy-ness and not enough action/spectacle.
Hope that I’m proven wrong.
LOVELY BONES is maybe Jackson’s best movie. I still have no idea how that 3.5-star near-classic (with two admittedly AWFUL elements) has gotten kicked down to laughingstock status.
It’s certainly better than Heavenly Creatures.
The Lovely Bones is an absolutely god awful film. I also have no idea why Lex has a problem with geeks. Seriously, he owns all of those Franchise films on DVD, and that’s the end of THE DISCUSSION!
Long as I’m on a roll: MARTIN FREEMAN LEADING MAN.
Yeah, there’s a good idea.
Ahhh….thanks, Telemachos. I now blame Tolkein 😉
I’m not bashing any of you who are eagerly looking forward to this flick. And I’m sure the world inside the film will be expertly crafted and all that.
But the trailer induced exactly the same reaction the LOTR films did: sheer & utter boredom.
Yes, we folks exist.
Sheer and utter boredom? Really? Ghastly.
im interested, but that trailer didnt stoke the fires. of course im going to see it, but there’s no excitement. looks like more of the same. and ‘the same’ will be fine. but is there anything there that makes you really excited?
this isn’t the kind of fire under the ass trailer that The Dark Knight Rises was.
I have seen each LOTR film at least 25 times. I have read the books including the footnotes at least 15 times. I will be there opening weekend. That is all.
“Wouldn’t you rather your movies exclusively have GOOD LOOKING people?”
Doesn’t that describe 95% of all movies and 99% of all TV shows?
‘I have seen each LOTR film at least 25 times. I have read the books including the footnotes at least 15 times. I will be there opening weekend. That is all.’
so the trailer could have been a shot of bilbo baggins ballsack and you’d have been fine with it. check.
Angus-The trailer showed me that the look of “The Hobbit” is right. They still have to deliver the goods.