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
So…
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End will be getting the widest official release of all time, in 4362 locations. Shrek the Third will gain 50 locations, going to 4172, while Spidey will lose 601 locations, to 3723.
See, Dave? As I told you, plenty of room for everyone… and there is still room for 28 Weeks Later to be playing in more than 2000 screens, and for that POS Georgia Rule to be in nearly 1900, and for Bug to open in 1661 locations, which is about average for a Lionsgate release.
Where did all these screens come from?
28 Weeks Later: -292
Georgia Rule: -634
Disturbia: -915
Fracture: -700
Delta Farce: -1,098
Hot Fuzz: -511
The Invisible: -921
Blades of Glory: -495
Next: -699
Meet the Robinsons: -684
Even with the addition of another 400 screens for Waitress, there is still at least a thousand screens deficit between what’s being added and what’s being dropped this weekend between these titles.
Ed… I think we are talking past each other a bit… those theater counts are prety much irrelevant… as you know, there are no $100 million weekends on just 4000 screens… Shrek 3 will actually gain locations while losing actual screens. And Pirates will actally be on well over 10,000 screens this weekend.
There is plenty of room for Shrek to have a $70 million 4-day… but not for more of a hold than that. We’re not talking traditional figures here.
Frankly, the stories about record theater counts are utter crap and continue to perpetuate myths about theater count vs screen count vs seat count. To have a studio ship 12,000 prints and then write about opening on 38 more “screens” than Spiderman, which shipped over 11,000 prints… oy.
I still don’t understand the low prediction for License to Wed. While any potential interest I had vanished once I saw the trailer, it still is the kind of movie that farts over $13 million in its opening weekend, much less the entire run.
Many years ago, back before it was common practice to run a movie on more than one screen in a multiplex (and when most multiplexes thus consisted of less than ten screens), a local paper ran a picture of the behind-the-scenes process used by the local theater to show the same movie on two screens: the leader would exit the projection booth through the wall, run across a series of rollers mounted high above the heads of theater employees using a backroom hallway, then go back through another wall into the next projection booth, run through that projector, then loop on back. Neat, eh? That would be the easiest way I could think of to account for unofficial multiple showings.
Officially, I felt a great wave of disgust today while I was making a run to Ann Arbor for a job interview and took a detour at a multiplex that happened to have HOT FUZZ listed. Finally seeing this as my golden opportunity to see the flick (and hoping to salvage what felt like a truly wasted trip) I went in and discovered that they were only running it once a day and I’d already missed the end credits by two hours. Perhaps, I thought, they would have been a little more generous with screenings if they weren’t running SHREK 3 on 6 screens and SPIDEY 3 on 7!
Let’s do the math: 13 / 20 = 0.65
Two-thirds of the screens in this complex were running TWO movies, and now PIRATES 3 is coming out tomorrow. Oh, and they already had three screens set aside tonight for the 8:00 Pirates screenings.
Although it’s true that the box-office chart is not much changed, there’s been one notable shift: Hairspray’s been downgraded from $145M to $115M. (The other change on a film not yet released is Surf’s Up, which has gone from $90M to $65M.) Why the change of heart?
RudyV, theatres still interlock prints all the time.
License to Wed opens opposite Transformers.
Now, if License were aimed more squarely at women and starred Diane Keaton or Julia Roberts, it might have a chance at counterprogramming. But my instinct says that the demographic that likes big dumb explosion-heavy robot movies has a whole lot of overlap with the crowd that goes to high-concept comedies that feature a heavily overacting male comic.
Robots win, easily. License to Wed would probably do great if it came out in February.
I don’t think you’re going too far out on that limb to say Transformers will outperform License to Wed – but I think you’re mischaracterizing the latter by labeling it a Robin Williams movie. While this will pull in a lot of the people that made RV a hit, it will also be one of the only films out in July to appeal to women.
The License to Wed trailer haa a chick flicky air about it so counterprogramming could work, though the overwhelming odor I get off it is ass.
If I’m reading that chart right, Dave, you’re estimating Pirates3 will actually make less at the box office than 2? Having seen the movie, I don’t see how that’s possible! It’s much better than the 2nd (which admittedy wasn’t difficult), and will definitely be getting more repeat viewers (mysef included, just to hear it in English next time) and appeals to a wider audience than either Shrek3 or SP3…
I saw it here (Belgium) late on opening night, in a 500+ screen of a downtown cinema that I haven’t seen packed in years, which was full to the brim with public of all ages… and who all seemed quite happy with it at the end (damn blasted end which I am NOT happy with grrrr, but by the way, make sure you stay till after the credit roll!). Everybody I know is planning on seeing it, some are just waiting for the crowds to calm down a bit. But at least around here this movie will probably be available for viewing through most of the summer. I don’t expect it to be knocked out of number 1 position until Harry Potter.
How can you fault a theater for running big commercial movies instead of lesser ones? It’s a business. Not that I don’t agree that it’s a sad enterprise that most screens are occupied with only ‘big’ films.
Of course I can fault them if my priority is that there should be a wide variety of films in the marketplace – having 13 screens showing two movies is bad for everyone except those two studios, and bad for the studios in the long run as well.
And bad for all those consumers who had previously been shut out of seeing the movie they wanted to becuase it was sold out. Oh wait, no… it’s better for them. Never mind.
It just sucks for the 1 out of 50 people who want to see Hot Fuzz rather than one of the big three.
I really have no sympathy for people who absolutely have to see Pirates 3 on opening night but can’t muster up the energy to buy tickets ahead of time. Are you saying that people who want to see Hot Fuzz, a movie which is better than Shrek/Pirates/Spider-Man, should just be considered SOL?
I completely disagree with you. This behavior by the studios rewards hype and marketing at the expense of good moviemaking.
“It just sucks for the 1 out of 50 people who want to see Hot Fuzz rather than one of the big three.”
Bad example. Hot Fuzz has been out for five weeks already, and is still playing at nearly a thousand locations. While I found the film to be very enjoyable, the chances of it ever becoming anything more than a niche film were very slim. Focus/Rogue blew the marketing IMO by trying to sell it to the people who were already sold on it: those of us who loved SotD. We already knew about the film. We already knew what they had done before. They didn’t need to sell it to us. I can understand needing to sell Superbad as being from the team that made The 40YOV or Talladega, since Judd Apatow is pretty much the only thing the three films have in common. But HF has the same basic team behind and in front of the camera. So don’t not sell it to those who were turned off by SotD by saying it’s from the creators of SotD (another niche title). Sell it as a balls-to-the-wall action comedy, and if the plebeians remember SotD when they see this… well, let them make that connection themselves.
As for you, David Poland… 🙂
Yes, we are talking past each other a bit, but the point still remains… there was always going to be room for all three films. Just as Fox and Dreamworks can schedule a huge movie on the same weekend two years in advance and know they’ll ech get what they want (4000 locations, at least 2000 digital projectors) by then. But I will predict right here and now that, come May 24 2009, we will see one of the first times (if not the very first) where two films open to $100M+ on the same weekend, mainly thanks to the premium theatres are already able to get for Digital 3D presentations.
Jeff, I really don’t care whether you have sympathy or not, I’m talking about convenience for the most amount of people (and I think the amazing first weekend numbers backs me up) – hence a lot more people winning than your claim of no one winning with the multiple screens.
“Are you saying that people who want to see Hot Fuzz, a movie which is better than Shrek/Pirates/Spider-Man, should just be considered SOL?”
If they hadn’t made it by week 5 – yes, I am saying they are SOL. Next time see the niche film quickly or see it on video.
You’re representing everything that I consider is damaging the movies – the attitude that if it didn’t gross $100m on opening weekend, it’s a ‘niche film’ and therefore unimportant in comparison, regardless of quality. People don’t see big movies on opening weekend because they like them – by definition, they haven’t seen them yet so they are reacting purely on the basis of marketing and nothing else.
“Hot Fuzz” may have been out for five weeks, but it wasn’t in all the same theaters for that duration. HF didn’t come anywhere near my little plot of land until the week before last, where’s it’s done nicely thanks to finally getting the opportunity to do so.
Look, people are going to go to the marketed films whether you or I like it or not. I still wish Eternal Sunshine had drawn in the rest of the Jim Carey crowd. But wishing doesn’t make it so.
But I don’t think it is unreasonable for people to be able to just go to the movies whehever they want and see the blockbusters. Unlike you, I have sympathy for people who are turned away from seeing movies, whether they share your taste or not.
As for smaller movies, there are plenty of places to go see them (hell, Waitress is on more screens), and there were plenty of opportunities to go see Hot Fuzz before this weekend. By this point in its run, it wasn’t becoming a blockbuster, no matter how many screens it was on. If it wanted to stay on screens longer it should have come out in February or in August. They wanted summer money, and they knew their window was going to be small. Blame the distributors.
And yes, Hott Fuzz is a niche film – not because it isn’t a blockbuster, but because it is a foreign film with no recognizable stars by a team whose last film was a zombie movie. If that’s not niche, please revise your definition.
You seem to be acting as an apologist for a system that discourages diversity in the multiplexes. Why? Why should people who can’t get into a sold-out Pirates show be treated better than people who can’t get into Hot Fuzz because it’s only playing twice a day? And this is a teen-boy oriented action comedy, we’re not talking about Away from Her or Paris Je t’aime.
What are your priorities?
Look, I think diversity in the cineplex is great, but it’s not what’s best, capitalistically, for multiplexes. Why is it wrong for business owners to decide to turn away 10 people per showing of Hot Fuzz, versus 150 for Pirates 3?
And if those 10 for Hot Fuzz were really all that determined, they would have gone before now. I don’t know why the outcry of pity for them. If they’re really willing to wait five weeks to go see the movie in the theater, they can wait 12 or whatever more to see it on DVD.
And the DVD revolution allows anyone, anywhere to see any of these movie, regarless of hype. There’s your diversity, in a way that is profitable.
Theater owners make more money from movies that hang around for longer runs than they do on opening weekend because the studios rake in more of that dough. The theater owners are slowly killing their golden-egg-laying geese.
Sorry to be the blinding light of reality here, but when I was living in Saginaw HOT FUZZ opened on no theaters within 60 miles. Now I’m living further south and I discovered it playing on one theater a half-hour away, once a day (at 1pm–I’d have to take the day off just to see it). After an intense Internet search right after it came out I found that I would have to drive an hour just to find any theaters playing it (surprise: it was playing at both multiplexes in Lansing–maybe that’s why nobody else could get a print).
You can deliver your “it’s playing on 1000 screens” speech as much as you’d like, but the reality is that this movie is not playing everywhere.
I should have listened to my brother–he’s given up on theaters entirely, and said he’d wait for the DVD.
^^^That’s the point – we’re moving to a world where people don’t go to theaters any more for lots of releases. The theatrical experience is becoming bifurcated into two realms – the mass-market extravaganzas that make all their money in the first ten days of release (and possibly in 3-D) thanks to marketing carpet-bombing, and art-house repertory experiences that show things in extremely limited release in twenty cities nationwide. And everything ending up on home video after that.
Which sucks.
Has the early buzz and hype for KNOCKED UP! not really come to fruition? Someone here a month or two back made the then-valid point that it was the summer movie we’re all pretending is a sleeper, when in fact we all know it’s going to be huge. At the time, I totally agreed.
But it’s a week away, and where’s the blitz? I’ve seen a few (somewhat misleading) spots for it on Spike, and that’s about it. Curious that before the 30 movies I’ve seen in a theater this year, I’ve seen exactly ZERO trailers for KNOCKED UP! Compare that to even a nonstarter like THE INVISIBLE, which I seemingly saw in front of every movie from DEJA VU up to the week before its release.
Why the soft compaign? Could just be my perception, but the word doesn’t really seem to be getting out. The few spots I mentioned look grimy and cheap, like even the film stock is bad. Is it just that Seth Rogen has none of the clout of even 2005 Carrell? I initially figured this for one of those 40YOV/WEDDING CRASHERS long-running word-of-mouth hits. But now I’m thinking it could get positively buried before the word even gets out.
Might need to do another update. 28 Weeks Later will have more than $24 million by Monday.
I’d suspect the problem is that the marketers did a great job of promoting KNOCKED UP as a one-joke movie: What happens when you’re impregnated by a guy who’s ugly, immature and stupid? There’s almost no way to salvage a situation like that–if the guy is the star, how do you make this loser sympathetic, and if the gal is the star how do you get around the issue of her friends rightly commenting for the running length of the movie “What the hell were you thinking?” and “Got what you deserved.”
Look, yeah, when I lived in Richmond, we got very few of the small indie/dependent releases, too. But you know what – I knew that when I decided not to live near a major city.
You can blame the multiplexes all you want, but it’s the nature of the beast. They don’t make these movies for very much money, knowing that audiences won’t be as big, so why spend the money on the prints and the ads if they’re not going to make back the money? Just get enough money on theatrical without spending too much on prints, and get enough buzz to get a sizable DVD order. It’s the economic equation indies live by.
It sucks, but then again, the studios gave up on these small movies, so it’s pretty much this or nothing.
But what I don’t understand is all the anger toward the multiplexes. The studio/distributor made the movie, knew what they were going against when they released it, and yet, did it anyway. Why is it all the multiplex’s fault for choosing the blockbuster, but the studio doesn’t get any of the blame? Ask them why they didn’t save precious Hot Fuzz for August.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly happy to blame the studios as well for their self-strangling behavior. Releasing Hot Fuzz in the Spring as they did was a reasonably good idea though.
I just don’t like it when people brush off what seems to me to be good things to be upset about – it strikes me as apathetic.
What doesn’t make sense is a multiplex opening a movie on seven screens, especially when they know and we know that they’ll still have the movie six weeks from now when the percentage they’ll have to pay the distributor is next to nothing. On opening weekend they’re making almost nothing from ticket sales, so it would be to their benefit to make audiences wait until the ticket price percentages start to go in their favor. The only explanation that makes any sense is that they’re making so much off opening weekend concessions that they’re willing to forego the profit they could make by forcing audiences to wait an extra week or two until the “SOLD OUT” sign usually starts to disappear.
Hasn’t that system gone out the window? Doesn’t Dave routinely tell us that it’s pretty much 50/50 every weekend. Or have I imagined that?
Also, they’d rather have 1000 people see Pirates 3 this weekend than only 800 because they decided to skimp on a session and then have the other 200 go to another cinema. Yes, it’s not fair but if you ran a cinema you would do the same thing. And if you didn’t then you’d be running your cinema into the fiscal ground.
“I should have listened to my brother–he’s given up on theaters entirely, and said he’d wait for the DVD.”
Well, your brother isn’t exactly helping now is he. If more people see movies on DVD that theatrically then of course the studios are gonna start forgetting that you exist.
I must say on relation to Knocked Up, I greatly enjoyed seeing the trailer for it filled with f words and sexual references. It was at a movie rated MA, but still. The audience loved it.
I thought 50/50 or 55/45 was the average but for the opening it’s higher for the studio – I think I remember that Lucas was asking for something like 90/10 for the opening weekends of the Star Wars prequels.
That was back in ’99, Jeff. Term agreements have changed a lot since then.
That’s why I didn’t phrase it as an unshakeable truth.
By week six, the people you pushed away have seen Pirates somewhere else, and now you have a line of people trying to get into the next blockbuster. And, as long as the ratio of profit isn’t Star Wars’ 90/10, you’re still making more off of the massive crowds than the few who don’t show up for something like Hot Fuzz.
Jeff, I don’t mean to seem apathetic, but this system has been running like this with foreign films for, god, 30 years or so, and for indie films for at least 15. And now, because you can’t see Hot Fuzz in week 5 it’s become an issue?
And finally, not everyone seems to feel that seeing a movie in a theater is a precious experience. Most people are fine with catching smaller films on DVD – just so long as they’re able to catch the film at all.
RudyV, theatres still interlock prints all the time.
Not as much as they used to. When “The Fellowship of the Ring” opened New Line threatened to blacklist any theater that got caught interlocking even one print.
“but this system has been running like this with foreign films for, god, 30 years or so, and for indie films for at least 15. ”
It was bad then and it’s worse now.
Oh, and the only reason HOT FUZZ became a “Week 5 issue” is because I couldn’t find it playing anywhere in weeks 1-4.
Where do you live, Rudy? I suspect that might hold some clues as to why you couldn’t find it in eeks 1-4.