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
Nobody on either these lists is an instant $20 million opener. Especially in something that doesn’t come adapted from another medium with a built-in audience. And since $20 million dollars ain’t even what it used to be, shouldn’t the bar be higher too?
If Will Smith isn’t on your list, Depp shouldn’t be there either. Or any of the other actors for that matter.
Joy opened short of $20m, but that was a marketing/mixed review issue probably. I agree with Hallick. Movie stardom isn’t a singular thing. It takes Wahlberg and Will Ferrell, or Wahlberg and a teddy bear, etc. Kevin Hart managed to barely squeak past $20m with The Wedding Ringer basically on his own. Same with Melissa McCarthy with Tammy, but both her and Hart were riding on their successes with earlier films with other well-known actors, or part of an ensemble cast. It’s all about placing yourself in the right movie and the right role.
I know Jack Reacher opened a bit short of $20m, but I’d say Tom Cruise still deserves to be on the “You Can Count On Them” list as much as anyone else on there. He definitely helped Edge of Tomorrow’s opening, which was a hard sell/badly marketed film.
Where is leo? Or Tom cruise? Shailene Woodley??? She is very average at her best. The rest of the list is good. I hope you do a DP/30 with ScarJo soon, she is my favourite. Btw, I came to know about you becoz of your Jennifer Lawrence interviews, can we get one for JOY this year?, she is a bonafide megastar, excellent both on and off screen, The last time Hollywood got so lucky with someone like that was with Carole Lombard way back in 1930’s. I have great hopes for her future.
Why are you so sour about Jennifer Lawrence now a days? She rejected an interview with you or something? You know you owe a good share of your popularity to your interviews with her. She is the best we have. The hackers have hurt her popularity a LOT but she really is the closest thing to a superstar in Hollywood. And she is hilarious offscreen too. Joy is a drama, imagine her doing a comedy , it would be HUGE @BO.
Yeah Cruise should be on the list, especially if you’re counting Wahlberg as a solo lead
Did anyone think THE JUDGE had a possibility to make $20 million it’s opening weekend? I’m a little surprised you’re calling RDJ out for falling boxoffice power based on a single film that isn’t a part of a billion dollar grossing club.
Echo everyone else. Cruise belongs on the first list. He’s been able to open several non-franchise films at over $20 million, many of which weren’t easy sells.
Just looking at non-franchise films from the last decade, you get:
Valkyrie (21)
Knight & Day (20)
Oblivion (37)
Edge Of Tomorrow (28)
Yeah ditto on Tom Cruise. Sure most of his movies would do better if it were not for all the bad PR over a certain religion but the fact that he has not opened a staring role movie to less than 15 million since Far and Away in 1992 if I am not mistaken is pretty good, and let’s not get into the inflation argument. Moviegoing habits have changed to much over the last few decades for that to be much of a argument.
Interesting thing about Cruise is that his movies usually have legs/good multipliers in the US, his “value” or whatever goes beyond the opening weekend.
Valkyrie opening 21, 83 finish
Knight & Day 20-76
MI GP 29(1st wide weekend) – 209
Jack Reacher 15 – 80
Oblivion 37 – 89 (kind of the exception here)
Edge of tomorrow 28 – 100
MI RN 55 – 195
Yeah, not sure if Pitt, of all people, should be considered borderline. As a lead of wide-release movies for the past 7 years, he’s opened:
…FURY, a WWII action drama, to $24 million.
…WORLD WAR Z, a troubled horror drama, to $66 million.
…KILLING THEM SOFTLY, a great but audience-unfriendly thriller, to $7 million.
…MONEYBALL, a sports drama, to $20 million.
…INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, a WWII action drama, to $38 million.
…BENJAMIN BUTTON, a period fantasy drama, to $27 million.
Obviously his artier movies aren’t good for $20 million… but they also tend to be much smaller releases or clear supporting roles.
Not only that, dude has opened movies that I don’t think were so concept-heavy that anyone could have done those numbers. WWZ without Pitt? Button without Pitt? Fury without Pitt? Basterds without Pitt, maybe. And he seems like he’s moving away from big movie-star plays in recent years, and more of those Counselor/12 Years a Slave/Big Short types of roles where he’s there to help get financing. But still: very reliable. Moreso than Damon, I’d argue.
And yeah, DiCaprio is a big one, considering how many non-sequel, non-action, non-franchise type movies he’s opened to big numbers.
That list has never been long. The names change, but its always been about ten actors and they always have to be in a story that has a hook.
There are so many celebrities, films and TV shows they’re like litter.
This is Poland logic at work and it is dubious. Movies have their ups and downs and are a feature of the film business at all times. The film stars can be very appealing in certain movies and not so much in others. Choosing the film and matching it up with the right actor/actress is fundamental to the film’s success. As for Damon,well several of his films didn’t do great boxoffice,and now The Martian is a hit. This topic comes up on a pretty regular basis and should not be used to clobber the performers,afterall movies are a collaborative effort,there are lots of people involved in all these creative efforts.
Tom Cruise
Leonardo DiCaprio
I’d say Wahlberg and Will Smith are on about the same level. Remember The Gambler?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Yeah, I gotta go with Cruise as well. But Ferrell? Let’s look at his recent live-action starring films where his co-star wasn’t Wahlberg: GET HARD (with the bankable Kevin Hart!), ANCHORMAN 2, THE CAMPAIGN, CASA DI ME PADRE (okay, an outlier, but still, there wasn’t even a curiosity factor), LAND OF THE LOST; all flops. You gotta go back to 2008 to finally find a hit: STEP BROTHERS. Get him outta there.
Anchorman 2 made over $120m. Not a flop. Those other movies besides Land of the Lost and Casa opened over $20m. May not have all broke $100m, but only a couple were flops I’d say. He can still open, or at least open with a decent costar. That’s why he still is getting work.
After Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World (and The Lego Movie, sorta), Chris Pratt belongs on one of these lists.
Ben Stiller?
Sandra Bullock?
Tom Hanks?
Sandra Bullock’s last movie opened to…$3 million. Stiller, no, both Walter Mitty and The Watch had 12 mil opening weekends. Hanks had the flops Larry Crowne and Cloud Atlas.
Both of Pratt’s hits were pre-sold franchises. He has yet to headline a movie where he isn’t surrounded by brand names and special effects. Even his next projects have a “safety net”, Passengers has J-Law as the top billed star, and Magnificent seven is an ensemble with Denzel. His agent is smart 🙂
Cadavra, days late on this and brack already refuted you, but let’s look closer at actual numbers:
GET HARD did $90 million. More than Hart without a big co-star did on WEDDING RINGER ($60 million or so) or ABOUT LAST NIGHT ($50 million or so). Not as much as Hart’s RIDE ALONG, but that was a more surefire high concept released in low-competition January.
THE CAMPAIGN also did around $90 million.
ANCHORMAN 2 did $127 million, pretty much the normal Ferrell Hit number. More than Step Brothers, The Other Guys, or Blades of Glory (all hits). Not quite as much as Talladega Nights.
DADDY’S HOME is on track to get in that range, too: $120 million or more. You can’t chalk that all up to Wahlberg. It’s going to outgross Wahlberg with Denzel (2 GUNS) and Wahlberg in a sequel to his biggest non-Transformers hit (TED 2). Ferrell is still a star.
No one is bulletproof. I think Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise created a real illusion throughout the ’90s, that there could be movie stars who basically never flop on a mainstream project. They did a great job picking projects, were amazingly popular, and had some good luck, too. Those two guys and Will Smith are the only stars in the past, what, 40 years? To have a track record that looked even remotely spotless (in each case for about a decade). The idea that there used to be tons of stars who people would unequivocally buy a ticket to see in ANYTHING is laughable.
Let’s not forget RIDE ALONG teamed Hart up with Ice Cube, who has his own box office following that is nothing to sneeze at.
Jesse, sorry it took so long to respond, but I’ve been busy wiping egg off my face. 😉