The Hot Blog

« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 31, 2007

MCN-A-Go-Go

We've had a bunch of original content on MCN this week...

There are two pieces on This Is England, first by Gary Dretzka, the second by Noah Forrest.

Larry Gross' appreciation of Ingmar Bergman will soon be followed by Ray Pride's.

Posted by poland at 11:58 AM | Comments (2)

A Clever Idea

And by the way... the first of what are sure to be many Dreamgirls sing-a-longs took place a couple fo weeks ago, at an outdoor theater at Outfest.

And next, the grunt-a-long version of 300.

Posted by poland at 11:52 AM | Comments (8)

What The HELL?!?!?!

Ingmar Bergman.
Tom Snyder.
Bill Walsh.
Michel Serrault.
Ulrich Mühe.
Now, Michelangelo Antonioni.

What is going on out there?

ADD - Wed, 12p - I should have included Laszlo Kovacs on this list.

Posted by poland at 02:50 AM | Comments (91)

De Duva

Posted by poland at 01:14 AM | Comments (3)

July 30, 2007

Behind The Superbad Wall

Once again, they are looking for name, birthdate, and zip code. Good luck, foreigners!

All three clips are from the first 20 minutes of the film or so, though they also contain some of the great dialogue runs that define the film.

The site...

Posted by poland at 05:24 PM | Comments (30)

Shoot 'Em Up... Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough

Shoot 'Em Up is the grindhouse movie that Harvey Weinstein seemed to think he was going to get when he gave free reign to Tarantino and Rodriguez. As B movie thrill rides go, the screenplay by Michael Davis kicks Grindhouse ass.

Now don't get me wrong. As a director, Michael Davis is not in the class of Tarantino, Rodriguez, Bay, or even Wiseman at this point in his directing career (the very start). He had a bigger budget for this film than for any of his direct-to-DVD features that he previously knocked out ... but still nothing in comparison to any of the other directors. Would the extra money have helped? Who knows how much or how little?

However, Davis as screenwriter - with a hand from producers Murphy, Montford, and Benattar and, of course, veteran make-it-work editor Peter Amundson - doesn't let us look at his directing limitations for very long. Usually when people say a movie is wall-to-wall action, they are engaged in hyperbole. Not this time.

The rest...

Posted by poland at 01:48 PM | Comments (10)

Watchmen Poster

The ComicCon Movie Poster

Original Covers

Posted by poland at 01:16 PM | Comments (15)

Bergman Dies

Antonius Block: I want knowledge! Not faith, not assumptions, but knowledge. I want God to stretch out His hand, uncover His face and speak to me.
Death: But He remains silent.
Antonius Block: I call out to Him in the darkness. But it's as if no one was there.
Death: Perhaps there isn't anyone.
Antonius Block: Then life is a preposterous horror. No man can live faced with Death, knowing everything's nothingness.
Death: Most people think neither of death nor nothingness.
Antonius Block: But one day you stand at the edge of life and face darkness.
Death: That day.
Antonius Block: I understand what you mean.

For me, I will start with the Billie August directed The Best Intentions, which was Bergman's pre-birth and then post-birth look at his parents, where they and then he came from... the beginning of his tale. Then we can jump right into Smiles of a Summer Night, his breakthrough here, now 52 years old... and on...

Posted by poland at 12:34 PM | Comments (21)

July 29, 2007

Lunch With Don Murphy Redux (aka Part 2)

More talk about Shoot 'Em Up, sequels, and lactating hookers.

Part 1

Posted by poland at 11:58 PM | Comments (14)

Stat O' The Day

For those of you wondering...

Ove the first 90 days of Summer, 2007 is once again the Best Summer Ever
2007 - $2.87b
2006 – $2.57b
2004 – $2.65b
2002 - $2.42b

These numbers are based on Box Office Mojo's daily numbers, which offer a daily Top Ten only, so there is some wiggle room… but not a lot. Generally, the entire daily take during the summer, beyond the Top Ten, is under $2 million.

(For those confused by a difference in these numbers and Mojo’s seasonal stats, they count the summer by the final numbers that movies do… this stat is day-by-day to today without trying to project the final totals.)

A significant part of the overall summer stat is the biggest July ever - with two days to go – by over $150 million, or more than 13%. Thank you, Simpsons and Autobots.

June was behind 2006 and 2004 and May was just barely ahead of 2002’s previous record.

Projecting into the next 33 days and the end of summer 2007, the best ever was actually 2001, when Rush Hour 2, American Pie 2, and The Princess Diaries each did over $100 million. There were also three $100 million August grossers in 2003, but no $200 million movie like Rush Hour 2… and that was the last time for a trio. (Note: The rest of summer 2001 was the best ever at the time, though it has been surpassed in every summer since.)

This summer, The Bourne Ultimatum and Rush Hour 3 seem sure to crack $100 million, though $200 million for either is a question mark. Can Superbad make it 3? And how strong will the holdovers of The Simpsons, Harry Potter, Hairspray, etc be?

For this to be the biggest summer ever, August only need gross somewhere under $600 million. It doesn’t need to set a new August record to join May and July.

The real question is whether the current $220 million lead over 2004 will be lost to front-loading. For instance, the big July hit of 2004, The Bourne Supremacy, did over $100 million of its gross after July 29. Will The Simpsons do that? Will Harry Potter pace I, Robot’s hold?

Posted by poland at 01:40 PM | Comments (31)

Sunday Estimates by Klady - July 27

The Simpsons reminds us, yet again, at how silly it is for all of us/any of us to be throwing around OPT (Other People’s Tracking) as news. It’s almost as though we can’t wait for the news to be news anymore. Tracking was never meant to be used as a tool to guess an exact number. It is a marketing tool to figure out how a film is being perceived by various groups who marketers are trying to reach.

As is, the weekly box office load is shot on Sundays, when the numbers are truly a guess by studios regarding Sunday numbers. And the more these Fridays get overwhelmingly large, the less that historic analysis of weekend expectations fits.

I appreciate the aggressive efforts of a guy like Steve Mason to try to be ahead of the news cycle. At least he is honest about where his info is coming from… and remains as inaccurate as any other carnival guesser. But people who report tracking as a tool to project specific opening numbers are, simply, intentionally delusional.

What amazes me is how week after week, people choose to forget how wrong the tracking was the week before… that is, aside from figuring out, most of the time, small, medium, or large.

In any case, congratulations to Fox Marketing.

No Reservations did a little better than some thought. Don’t be surprised if the movie is a bit leggier than expected, as the official “women’s movie” of the late summer.

I Know Who Killed Me did almost the same exact per-screen as Georgia Rule, albeit on almost half as many screens. It’s also Screen Gems’ (although technically under Tri-Star’s sleeping banner) worst opening since 2003. The movie will still hut black in DVD.

Everything else is rolling right along as expected… which remains the story of this summer. There are only a few films that really underperformed realistic expectations and only a couple that really overperformed the same.

Posted by poland at 10:09 AM | Comments (47)

July 28, 2007

Friday Estimates by Klady... Simpsonize

Posted by poland at 11:09 AM | Comments (16)

July 27, 2007

Box Office Hell - 7/27

(Updated @ 2:19p to include late, post-east coast matinee, post-BO Hell posting entries by La Fnke.)

Posted by poland at 01:36 PM | Comments (56)

Sweeney Todd Teaser Poster

(a close-up after the jump)

Posted by poland at 12:27 PM | Comments (64)

July 26, 2007

DreamaParaConAmount

There was little new or news to chew on at the Paramount event at ComicCon.

But before they got started was the "hello" from the ComicCon staff. And with that came some new rules. As has been noted before, we are now in the error/era of the PG-13 ComicCon. But they have also decided to censor the question and answer process, pointing out that on top of vetting your questions and expecting you to stick to the script, they expect the audience to be completely respectful of the talent “so they’ll keep coming back.” Again… a ComicCon disaster. Some of the best moments in years past have been the rude, horny, or stupid questions and the great or lame responses. If you can’t confront the stars “so they will come back,” within reason, what is the point of them coming at all?

ComicCon is not the place for me. It is not my vibe. These are not, for the most part, my obsessions. But the people for whom this is Nirvana should be allowed all the room in the world. Those stars work for this crowd (even if the estimates of how much box office they generate have been way overstated this week in the media), not the other way around.

But we digress…

They loved them some Andy Samberg... but strained to laugh at some of his jokes. They were thrilled by Neil Gaiman twice (Stardust- corrected, Fri, 2:25a - and Beowulf). Likewise, they were thrilled by JJ Abrams twice (Untitled Monster Movie and Star Trek). And of course, they were thrilled by Spielberg & Co. from the set of Indiana Jones 4. (The joke was that he said the name but it was bleeped out of the live feed... ha ha. JJ also made a point of saying he wasn't giving up is title.)

The "news" on Indiana Jones was Marion Ravenwood/Karen Allen joining the group at the end of the presentation... ah, mom. Ray Winstone (also Beowulf) was described as Indy's "sidekick."

And on Star Trek, the "news" was that there would be an old/young storyline that would include presumably final appearances by Shatner and Nimoy. Nimoy appeared in San Diego with his young "replacement," who really looks a lot like him. Whether other older Trek performers will be in the film is unclear. Let's just hope Spock & Kirk aren't out camping when they get a distress signal.

The screenplay by Orci & Kurtzman (they were on the panel) was praised a few times during the presentation. And if it turns out to be their first feature script that doesn't make me feel the need to question whether the development execs were stoned while greenlighting their screenplay, I will be thrilled and happy to praise them too.

The only appearance from Sweeney Todd was a teaser poster, which is (in a poor transfer) here...

They showed the already shown Abrams trailer... huge applause. (JJ did acknowledge that it was a giant monster attacks NY film.) No Indy footage, no Sweeney footage, no Star Trek casting news other than noted...

Oh yeah!

Iron Man.

They held fire a bit, with a Saturday panel coming. But Favreau did a bit where he taped something from L.A. and showed partially done CG... which of course was an old, horrible Iron Man cartoon. Then he came out. He seems to have lost 30 pounds or more, completely changing his face and body shape. And he showed some footage... lead up to Stark getting injured... explanation of the heart box on his chest (which I didn't really think was great)... the first suit... and a tag at the end with the new suit flying, 100% CG.

Looked okay to me.... not overwhelming. I love Iron Man. He was always my favorite character, since he reminded me of my dad, if my dad was going to be a superhero. From the footage they showed, I wonder whether I will like the tone of the piece. I'm not real thrilled with Tony Stark finding God, though drying out is ok, becoming a helper instead of a greedy pig... not so much. But we'll see. As usual, it's not the effects that I care about, it's the character. And the footage of Downey being loosey goosey wasn't getting me.

Okay... that's all for now from the shocking visit to ComicCon. About six times an hour, I run into someone I know saying, "I thought you hated ComicCon! I thought it jumped the shark!"

The floor was overcrowded and slightly irritating this morning. By this afternoon, it was hell. There are fewer people dressed up and more noise than ever. But I will say, the studio stuff is less obnoxious and less dominant on the floor. So maybe a natural correction is underway.

My favorite moment was when a girl in a Princess Leia bikini costume... without the bikini bottoms... sauntered by and a studio pub who is gay got a panicked look in his face after coming eyeball to labia with the young lady's undercarriage. I guess this event really is for kids... ones exiting the birth canal or being conceived.

Posted by poland at 06:10 PM | Comments (15)

A Correction... writ small

Well, at least the Los Angeles Times ran some form of correction. It is not nearly detailed enough or prominent enough to counter the heavily headlined misinformation of their previous story.

But it is something...

For the Record
July 26, 2007

Film critics: The headline ("Online Critics Expand Boycott Against Fox") and deck ("Supporters Nationwide Join Chicago Group in Protesting Its Limited Access to Screenings") on a July 20 article in the Calendar section inaccurately suggested that the Chicago Film Critics Assn.'s online critics alone were protesting 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Films' alleged practice of limiting access to screenings and that supporters nationwide had joined Chicago's protest. Film critics in other cities voiced support for the Chicago group but did not formally join it. The organization's chief, Dann Gire, now says there was no formal boycott but a voluntary "action of protest." The article also misspelled Gire's first name as Dan.

Posted by poland at 06:03 PM | Comments (0)

Noah's Sienna Frenzy

Three years into Sienna Miller's career everyone knew who she was, but nobody cared. It was hard to tell if the young lady had any discernible talent other than to smoke cigarettes, wear pretty clothes and tell the paparazzi to "fuck off." I must say that personally, I was beginning to hate her.

The final straw for me came with the release of Factory Girl, a movie that wears its vapidity like a badge of honor. Ms. Miller's performance resembles nothing like any human being anybody has ever met. Her performance was at turns flat, hammy, and worst of all: unoriginal. Miller was playing the ultimate wannabe: Edie Sedgwick, a woman famous for hanging out with more famous people and it was hard not to see the comparisons between the actress and her role.

After I walked out of Factory Girl I became convinced that there was nothing separating Miller from any other limited actress like Kirsten Dunst or Lindsay Lohan except for the fact that she had a British accent. And hey, Lohan did a pretty serviceable British accent in The Parent Trap, too.

Then I saw Interview and everything changed for me.

The rest...

Posted by poland at 06:01 PM | Comments (24)

July 25, 2007

BBBEEEOOOWWWUUULLLFFF

Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf made its public debut tonight at ComicCon in 3-D. The film, which promises violence, sex, heroism, and death, has had only one reel (of six, most likely) fully rendered and outputted by the computers, which is what would shown and which compromised all but a handful of shots that appear in the trailer for the film, which is also premiering here in San Diego.

The Los Angeles Times piece hinted at it the possibility of it being a PG-13, but tonight co-writer Roger Avery, who appeared to talk about the film to the crowd of about 300 in the UA Horton Plaza theater with co-writer Neil Gaiman, confirmed it. It’s a funny thing, with 300 making over $200 million domestic with the R, the restraint of PG-13 is an odd choice. But maximizing the return on an expensive film is always a priority and Zemeckis clearly knows how to work the edge, as was shown in a section of the film with a naked Beowulf whose genitals are covered by all sorts of items. Less covered is Angelina Jolie’s very familiar looking digitized character who has all the curves and none of the R-rated bits.

In any case… the footage is beautiful and compelling. It is a kind of shock to the system, watching something so real and so drawn-looking at the same time and being drawn into the performances like normal. And you are.

Reel Two starts at the end of the fight between Beowulf and Grendel, who is a far more hideous variation on Gollum/Smeagol. And watching him suffering, the mind is stimulated in a variety of ways. You are watching a character. You are watching an animated image that is harsh and ugly and beautiful in its way. And you are watching the artistry of Zemeckis and his team, working back and forth between the two universes.

The big acting is not really in Reel Two, though it is intense in a physical way. The highlight is probably Ms. Jolie emerging from the waters, as a kind of gold muck slips and slides over her naked body in a way that, although animated, is undeniably sexy in a very connected, human way. Jolie is a unique figure in all this, since she was not only in the experimental Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, but in Tomb Raider, she is very much a walking cartoon of a woman.

From November 2007 to May 2008, we will have two masters (one who launched the other) offering two very different aesthetics working some similar territory, Zemeckis here and Spielberg with Indy 4. And while I don’t think anyone has to choose between them, we will be in a movie universe in which both can live.

It is very easy to imagine, based on this small amount of footage, that Beowulf could be a huge smash that critics can actually get behind and that it could be a serious Academy player in the way Lord of the Rings was. Though this is not a trilogy, it seems ready to break even more ground in a real way. (The issue of acting nominations was something Avery & Gaiman considered out loud in the room tonight. With big names like Hopkins, Jolie, and Malkovich, one thinks they might actually turn that trick if all the pieces come together. The great Ray Winstone, who doesn’t look like himself, might have trouble on that basis alone.)

On the other hand, it could turn out to be a niche film that turns off the adults. And perhaps that’s why they are going PG-13… to have it all, not just some.

This sneak peek stinks of greatness. Let’s hope by November it’s stinking to high heaven. What could be more thrilling for film lovers?

Posted by poland at 11:10 PM | Comments (53)

Chicago Film Critics Assoc Update

As I have been the covering from the start - unlike some who would claim an exclusive because they found an e-mail in their inbox following two weeks of me reporting the evolving story and putting my ass on the line with the LA Times, Fox, and friends in the CFCA - here is the most recent event in the CFCA mishigoss, a letter from Dan Gire to his CFCA membership.

The reason this is not the last step in the chain is that the details of what the CFCA's enforcement plan and Fox's expectations are not addressed in this e-mail. That is the crux of this issue, not all the details, which were already pretty much covered in this blog in total days ago. This letter says, "The CFCA offered to put disciplinary teeth in its Ethics Code to ensure that its members would not release movie reviews early." Dann Gire has not responded to an e-mail asking for any detail about what those teeth - understood initially to be dismissal from the group, the penalty of which includes not receiving Academy screeners - are now meant to be.

Dann also does some dancing with the timeline, Fox's displeasure with the LA Times story, in which his quote that "an agreement between the studio and his 59-member group was imminent" was a particular cause of irritation since the deal was still up in the air with Fox waiting for Gire to get back to them, and finally with the upheaval in the ranks of CFCA membership, many of whom openly discussed leaving the group in light of the ham-fisted and embarrassing handling of all of this.

However, he does confirm how error ridden the LAT story was. Still waiting for that corrected piece, LAT.

If, in fact, the deal is set - the settlement is still not officially "signed off on" by Fox - and the penalty is being removed from CFCA membership and Fox screening lists if embargoes are broken (professionally or anonymously), I believe it can be a template to cover many of the screening issues of recent years. There will still most certainly be selective screenings and movies not screened at all, by Fox and every studio. But a formal agreement on embargo is an idea whose time has come, creating accountability on both sides.

Dan's letter starts below and the rest can be found after the jump.

My Fellow Chicago Film Critics:
This will hopefully clear up a lot of the misinformation that has been passed around and reported about the Chicago Film Critics Association's negotiations with 20th Century Fox.

(continued after the jump)

On July 9, the Chicago Film Critics Association's Board of Directors passed a resolution to stage an "action of protest" against 20th Century Fox films. This action was not a strike, boycott, quest or "war against Fox," as it has been described. Rather, our call to action - a temporary freeze on interviews and non-review materials - was designed to open up lines of communication with the studio. The critics wanted a fairer, more inclusive policy to see press screenings earlier, without some critics forced to see a movie the night before its public opening. That prompted the action of protest. We made no secret of this action. As a result, a few critics organizations from around the country contacted the CFCA to voice their support for the action and the negotiations.

On July 12, I had my first telephone conversation with Chris Petrikin, SVP of Fox Corporate Communications, and Breena Camden, EVP of National Publicity and Field Marketing. We shared our views and mutual concerns about press screenings and critics' reviews. In the days following our initial talk, Mr. Petrikin and Ms. Camden remained open and flexible in our negotiations.

The next day, CFCA board members Erik Childress and Alejandro Riera and I crafted an initial proposal to resolve the screening issue, based on Fox's concern about film reviews being released before a movie's opening date. We sent it to Ms. Camden and Mr. Petrikin, who said the studio would be amenable to opening up its earlier press screenings to CFCA members if the CFCA could show good faith in assuring that film review dates would be respected. The CFCA offered to put disciplinary teeth in its Ethics Code to ensure that its members would not release movie reviews early. A preliminary agreement was roughed out and it appeared that our negotiations would be quickly resolved.

Then a report on the negotiations appeared in the L.A.Times on July 20. It was a report fraught with misleading information. The article incorrectly reported that the CFCA is waging a boycott against movies by Fox and Fox Searchlight, and that other critics organizations had joined the boycott. That never happened. Inside the story, I am properly quoted as saying that an agreement with Fox is imminent.

Since the publication of this report, many people, including other critics, have assumed that the CFCA is indeed boycotting Fox movies (it is NOT) and that Fox has been stonewalling or trying to ban more critics from its screenings. In fact, the opposite has been happening.

On July 20, as a gesture of good faith, Fox invited all members of the CFCA to its upcoming movie "The Simpsons," On the same day, the CFCA officially lifted its action of protest to fulfill our part of the bargain. In a letter to the membership, I explained that to continue being invited to early press screenings, Chicago members must agree to abide by the rules and respect the opening review dates of motion pictures. In essence, Fox and the CFCA have exchanged one professional courtesy for
another professional courtesy. It is my hope that from now on, critics groups and Hollywood studios can find common ground for an industry-wide agreement on professional conduct that will benefit studios and critics.

Meanwhile, let me repeat: Chicago's film critics and 20th Century Fox have resolved their screening and embargo issues. The protest is over.

We're good to go, people.
Dann Gire

Posted by poland at 06:48 PM | Comments (12)

Simpsons

Updated, 6:44p

I am headed to ComicCon for a screening tonight... so I won't be here when the The Simpsons Movie review posts on the MCN front page later this afternoon. Here is a preview... click on the front page for the whole thing in the late afternoon...

As I write in much more detail at the top of the review, "My embargo was lifted and others, I was told, were being contacted to lift their embargoes. Obviously, this doesn’t open anything for people who haven’t seen the film. But it is an issue of principle, not detail."

and...

The first big problem with The Simpsons Movie is that we have way too much of The Simpsons and almost nothing of the supporting comic performers. In fact, the most significant non-Simpson in this film is a brand new character. And though I love Albert Brooks and he does a great job as Russ Cargill, narrowing the entire supporting crew down to 2 or 3 jokes each in a film this long is not only irritating, it’s a narrative problem.

It’s almost as though the filmmakers looked at other cartoons that moved to the big screen and refused to make similar choices. For instance, Beavis & Butthead Do America offered an idea that really could have worked… a family roadtrip. The South Park crew made a musical… nope!

The movie suffers most of all from what a lot of this summer’s movies have suffered… self-seriousness. Do any of you really need a movie in which Bart seriously considers how he has been raised by Homer and Marge? Is sealing off Springfield and/or destroying it really a funny idea? Do we really want to get into the depth of disappointment that Marge has for Homer?

This ain’t Spider-Man 3!

The rest...

Posted by poland at 01:52 PM | Comments (14)

Supergood

"You don't want girls to think you suck dick at fucking pussy."

That kind of says it all for Superbad. It is profane, obnoxiously stupid, and somehow precisely true. And you have to think about what was just said a few times while you are busy laughing at it.

There are dozens of other extremely quotable lines and moments from this film from producer Judd Apatow, the real teenage years of screenwriters Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg, played in the film by Jonah Hill (playing Seth) and Michael Cera (playing Evan), for indie comedy director turned hip commercial comedy director, Greg Mottola.

But it is the overall package that makes Superbad easily the funniest film of 2007 so far and the hippest, stupidest, smartest, and most sweetly profane comedy of what now has to be known as The Apatow Oeuvre.

The rest....

Posted by poland at 10:06 AM | Comments (14)

July 24, 2007

Lo Notes

David Halbfinger took on the "trouble in movies" angle on the Lindsay Lohan arrest, getting a solid quote from Bernie Brillstein that, "I believe she’s uninsurable. And when you’re uninsurable in this town, you’re done.”

True dat. From the middle of 1999 to the middle of 2000, Robert Downey, Jr made at total of zero studio or higher budget movies. A supporting role in Gothika was followed by the lead in another Joel Silver production, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. From there, he continue to re-build trust until a studio was finally willing to bet the farm on clean & sober Downey with Iron Man.

A few funny things from the sidelines of this piece.

First, this is the best thing that could ever have happened to Sony’s Screen Gems unit. No one at Screen Gems has expected anything much to come of the film since Ms. Lohan went into rehab once (or twice?) before. Now, if the film doesn’t open, no one can be blamed. The movie will not lose money because it is inexpensive enough to get into the green on foreign sales and DVD. If the film opens in a wave of interest in Lohan stripping, it is gravy.

Second, I love that Ash is now calling himself Ash Baron Cohen. It does seem to be his real name. But in a decade of directing very low-budget films with some high profile talent, he has always been “Ash.” Now, Sasha Baron Cohen comes along and the gimmick changes. Hysterical.

And as for the movie, Halbfinger notes Olympia Dukakis and Shirley MacLaine, who can get you some foreign money, but not a ton. But apparently, Ash also has Channing Tatum and Rosario Dawson in what IMDb has as a $5 million budget film, which would be high for Ash. But those four should get him most of his money for production. Maybe he’ll have to cut the budget to $4 million or give away a little more of the movie, but it seems he can get the thing made (unless the Dawson and Tatum gets are not real).

My advice for Ms. Lohan? Disappear for at least one full year before trying a comeback. Go to Europe or Tahiti or India or wherever. She is now well past the point where an unexpected pregnancy or a sex video will amuse the public… it will end her. Peace to her.

Posted by poland at 11:03 PM | Comments (44)

More ComicCon

ADDED, Wed 10:30a - Gavin Hood is now not heading to San Diego, as otehr business commitments came up. Also, the latest word is that Sweeney Todd is now not showing footage, in spite of Entertainment Weekly saying so... which actually surprised me... they generally don't jump the gun. And I won't be shocked, really, if the footage ends up turning up in spite of all the flipping.

The thing about all of this is that any veteran of studio events is aware that lots of stuff like this changes all the time... lots of talent to wrangle, lots of personal publicists to deal with, lots of choices to make (like showing Beowulf in 2-D in Hall H, but screening that footage in 3-D for press tonight).

So ComicCon is just another battleground for "scoops," that are really gifts a day before showing this stuff to the whole world... which makes you wonder whether the generosity pulls the bottom out of the reveal?

================================================

This e-mail came across the desktop today...

BY ALL MEANS SEND THIS OUT...

A director friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) presenting materials from his film at Comicon, just told me he has had to CENSOR some of those materials because the Con wants to cater to the family audience. He's actually making edits in his finished film footage so he'll be allowed to show the material at the con...!

That's right...Comicon staff is now CENSORING the material presented there.

I wonder how long it will be before they censor the outfits the girls are wearing and ban all R. Crumb and Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers comic from the Convention Hall Floor...?

He also speculated this is part of the reason Fox pulled out of the Con, because of HITMAN and AVP 2 and their desire to not censor their materials (see below).

Since when did Comicon cater only to the family audience? Like...ah...how about NEVER?!?

SUNDAY is supposed to be KIDS DAY. COMICON WAS NEVER MEANT FOR FAMILIES.

Comicon is dead. Long live Comicon.

I also have this:

Fox pulls out of Comic-Con after organizers nix its violent presentation

Fox will not be making a presentation at next week's Comic-Con because organizers said their planned montages from the R-rated movies Alien vs. Predator 2 and Hitman were too violent for the increasing number of families and children that show up in San Diego for the convention. Fox said it is backing out simply because its presentations won't be ready for the event, but sources close to situation said the studio decided if it couldn't promote those two films it would rather show nothing at all. Comic-Con has established itself as the place where studios unveil the first looks at projects they want fanboys to buzz about.

Nearly 120,000 people are expected to attend this year's convention, which starts its four-day run next Thursday (July 26). The event used to cater to young men, but has in recent years attracted more families with children.
This year's panels include comedies Superbad and Get Smart and fantasy films The Golden Compass, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and Pixar's Wall-E. Fox will be the only major studio not participating.

=====================

Furthermore...

It turns out that Fox will be in San Diego, in spite of pulling out of the drama over them pulling out of the Room H spectacle. Gavin Hood will be there for Wolverine, though it is not clear whether Hugh Jackman will get off of Baz's set long enough to come to The Con.

In addition, there will be a breakfast on Saturday morning where they will show some footage from Death Sentence. James Wan and Garrett Hedlund will be there and star Kevin Bacon will be in right after the breakfast (late flight).

Posted by poland at 05:12 PM | Comments (10)

The Frenzy Of Noah

This is the first effort on MCN from Noah, who most of you will recognize as a contributor on this blog. Here are some excerpts from the first column... have at it!

I see everything. I will see any movie that comes out because regardless of what the critics might be saying, I will always take the chance that perhaps they are wrong and perhaps I will be able to get that feeling that I look for. It's like a drug for me and I can't wait to get my next fix.

I never want to hate a movie. I might have preconceived notions, might feel that based on a certain star or a certain director that I may not like what I am about to view. But when I sit down in that seat, everything goes away and all I want to do is be entertained. But more than that, I secretly am hoping when I sit down to watch the next Brett Ratner film that he will somehow give me that high that I am longing for.

3) I'm not a particularly big fan of Asian cinema. I don't really know what it is, but I've never really enjoyed anything other than a few Kurosawa films. I think it's probably my fault, though I don't know why.

4) The only critics I read regularly are James Berardinelli and Roger Ebert.

7) I'm 24 years old, live in New York City with my girlfriend and I try to go to the movies as much as possible. I'm also a rabid Mets and Knicks fan.

9) I'm extremely stubborn about my opinions, but when in arguments I try not to be mean-spirited. So I try not to call anyone an asshole just because they thought 300 was awesome and I thought it sucked.

10) 300 sucked hard.

More...

Posted by poland at 03:02 PM | Comments (39)

July 23, 2007

Lunch With... Don Murphy

You asked for it... you got it...

Don Murphy on Transformers, Shoot Out, and life in Hollywood.

Here is the first part of the conversation.

Posted by poland at 05:00 PM | Comments (88)

Pot, Kettle, Lie

Okay... here's an idea...

Who can come up with the best false rumor about the new Harry Potter look?

I'll send the best/worst one a DVD or something if you want it.

Come on... let's be a web of abuse!!!

Posted by poland at 03:42 PM | Comments (36)

Random Monday

Some people seem to have random things they want to discuss, so here is the space...

Please note SPOILERS if you are offering them... and really make them stand out, especially if you are chancing ruining someone's Potter reading experience.

Posted by poland at 12:08 PM | Comments (28)

When You're In Love With A Beautiful Woman...

I'll keep this brief.

One of the difficult parts of juggling a blog, a column, a news site, and a lot of time on the phone and in person with "the industry" is remaining clear on what I have actually said or written out loud and what has been conversation between the lines. Remembering what is on and off the record is clear. But sometimes I feel like I have been talking about something forever and then I have to really consider whether I wrote it down for your consumption.

I have had so many conversations about Par and DW in the last two years, on and off the record, with stories I have run or decided to let slide, I have lost my grasp of what page I stopped reading at "last night." So I shall sum up...

Ron Grover's Business Week story on Paramount and DreamWorks was, essentially, a four-month old look at the situation at the studios Though it did a nice job of tying much of it together, it missed some of the real and simple causes of friction.

Meanwhile, C. Nikki Finke is trying to claim ownership of the issue, almost none of which dropped for the first time on her blog, no matter how many times she tells everyone she had an exclusive. The exception, however, is that she's been getting the real inside spin from Grey's camp for the last few months, starting with the comedic piece about how DreamWorks now looks like a reasonable purchase by Paramount. The problem with that analysis is that it is all surface. Someday, Nikki will learn to do her math and not just take everything at face value. “I understand Brad just had a very cordial dinner with David at Mr. Chow's,” is not news or really anything… except for someone trying to get a message into Nikki’s column.

LATE ADD - Peter Bart's take

My take is this… the DreamWorks deal will either cement Brad Grey’s position by 2010 or it will be the end of his career as a studio guy. (His old life as a manager and producer waits for him with as much, if not more, power than ever.) He will be the hero or the cuckold and all he can do is wait and see. (The hope of a Pellicano Demise is now 98% fantasy for Brad haters.)

Grey, by bailing out DreamWorks on a financial level that GE could never accept – especially the $900 million for the library, which Paramount could not afford in the deal and laid off for a few years to private pirates - took S,K & G out of the financial muck that was created in the early years of the studio and made them more than whole. Further, by screwing up utterly with his production team, he put last year and at least a couple of years to come squarely into DreamWorks hands.

The excitement over specific DreamWorks product is missing the point utterly. Paramount has become, loaded with DreamWorks personnel, essentially working now as an output structure for DreamWorks Productions. But while everyone else in town is trying to put themselves in a similar position - with outside money paying the bill for production while they suck up distribution fees and overhead - Paramount is eating the costs on both sides, which is not a winning proposition for the studio… especially if a few DW films go bad.

Moreover, Paramount was already partnering with DreamWorks on a bunch of films and could have continued to do so on many. Indiana Jones, for instance, was always owned by Paramount, so if there was to be a new one, it was always going to be a Paramount film. The illusion that it (or War of the Worlds, for instance) was every going somewhere else without this deal is just wrong. For Paramount to earn $700 million-plus on this deal will take many years, if it is to happen at all.

But the real point of all of this for Paramount is stock price. And the stock price is just about the same place it was when the acquisition process started… and in between, it has mostly been down.

In the meantime, DreamWorks has been like a defeated character in a horror movie, face down in the grass after a fall from the fifth floor, and when we went looking for the body, found it missing. Happy Halloween, Hollywood.

What happens from this moment on is not in Brad Grey’s hands, though his ego could push the issue in a bad way. DreamWorks is born again. S, K & G could go out and raise the money from a hedge fund and not a single partner (no Paul Allen redux) to relaunch their own studio or buy an existing studio (and there is only one with their primary offices on the lot). Or they could, like in The Hidden, be in complete control of their decisions and financial freedom while living off the earthbound human distribution-and-funding flesh bag that is Paramount.

It’s a great place to be. And for Paramount, it is a crap place to be.

Fortunately for Paramount, much of the Paramount infrastructure is staff from their own long-standing team. Gerry Rich has been getting the job done in marketing. In fact, aside from a few irritating decisions from the Rob Moore (especially saying too much to the press), the biggest problem has been Brad Grey’s urge to behave like a studio chief at a studio where he has set it up so the Big Kahuna is in an adobe off Lankershim.

The question of whether Spielberg & Co pulls up stakes and moves along is really up to them and can turn on a whim… leaving Paramount in the role of the man who is desperately in love with the fickle woman who others are dying to have.

And I should say, the fickleness of DreamWorks – truly a three headed (charming) monster of a company – is not reserved for Paramount. The internal temperature of the company about its own team has required taking every few weeks. It does seem to me that Stacey Snider has really settled things down. She has taken a strong team and made the whole thing work much more smoothly, less reliant on her high-flying bosses, allowing them to relax and be less whimsical. Stacey is the key, at this point, to DreamWorks’ stickiness at Paramount and my sources don’t seem to think her exit from her Paramount contract is quite as easy as the Grover story indicates. But I haven’t read that contract, so maybe it is as easy as “Stacey leaves if Stephen leaves.” If that is the case, it is yet another example of Paramount getting trampled by DreamWorks in the dealing room.

So what will Lady DreamWorks decide? Does she want Prince Not-So-Charming or will she go back to Shrek, an idealized utopia with all the farting and belching of trying to make it as a studio without the corporate bulk that protects the other majors?

At 60 years old, Steven Spielberg probably doesn’t want to have a newborn in the house. But then again, ego and passion are always in fashion.

The threat will hang over all of Paramount’s dealings with their dominant, aggressive #1 child. The next two real landmarks will be a determination of the future of the DreamWorks library, currently in a very expensive holding pattern and the effort to re-sign Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen to contract next year. Along the way, there will be fights and threats and success and screw-ups… many of which will be accurately reported weeks after they happen and everyone involved has moved on.

Ain’t love a bitch?

Posted by poland at 10:05 AM | Comments (9)

The Rat, The Fat & The Matt

It's a funny thing about franchises.

There is only one Bond, 22 films into the series, an event pretty much every time out of the box. No doubt, a lot of what keeps it fresh is that the Bonds and the directors change while Bond remains a genre of its own through each generation.

Still, the top four films in the world this year are three or more films into franchises (Pirates, Spider-Man, Shrek, and Potter), the only films so far to gross more than $500 million worldwide (and likely the only ones this summer).

And then there is Bourne.

The rest

Posted by poland at 09:43 AM | Comments (21)

July 22, 2007

MCN Down

10:19p - And we're back!

We're working on it... not sure why the front page won't load, but it won't... fun fun fun... anytime now...

Posted by poland at 09:24 PM | Comments (3)

Sunday Morning Blogout

It was fascinating to watch Peter Bart fight The Evil Of The Blogosphere on Sunday Morning Shootout, with Peter Guber taking a much more moderate position and guest Anne Thompson actually smacking back a bit against the boss.

The very real tendency to define the entirety of cyberspace by, to their credit, Shootout-tagged gossip sites, is really the biggest problem for those of us who don’t toil in upskirts and sidebreasts and drinking binges each day.

Again, I can’t quite express how disturbing it is that no one else seems to feel the need to point out that The Los Angeles Times has made up a story about there being a web boycott of Fox at this moment when none exists. And the reason this is so problematic is that when gossip gamers like Radar, Defamer, or La Finke run something, people generally know to take it with a grain of salt. (And shame on them for not knowing better if they don’t.) But the LA Times, however gimpy these days, is still A Major.

And let me point out… when the NY Times felt themselves slipping into the gossip game, they made a real effort to pull back. They dumped Boldfaced Names and they got more newsy. Halbfinger/Cieply is not perfection, but they are a big step in the right direction from Waxman/Holson… and not because they are guys. They simply seem a lot less prone to finding a hook and then working that hook – and not necessarily the facts – for dear life. I would truly admire the Paper of Record for putting David Carr on this beat, not as an Oscar geek, but as a columnist for a year or two. His cynicism and the tonal freedom of a column would do us all good.

But I digress…

What everyone misses – and Anne tried to get in there – was that speed is not the key to web success. It is the power of writing and tone and analysis and the draw of personality… same as it ever was. Defamer breaks very little… but it is fun to read. Same with La Finke.

And TMZ is not about to be duplicated by any independent website because it was give an eight-figure budget to do what it does by AOL. Every time any journalist writes or talks about TMZ, it should be followed by, “a highly funded division of AOL.”

And what was the heaviest inspiration for TMZ? The independent Smoking Gun. TSG understood the power of real information, documents. When TSG got hot, they were doing something no one else had really thought of or took the time to do. The tabs did some of it, but they could take their time since no one was biting at their heels.

And that, I think, is a real key. Traditional Media feels the pressure of the speed thing. But that is not what people look to TM for. They want the full story. And truthfully, if it comes down to a footrace, TM outlets will collapse under the weight of the very infrastructure that would theoretically give them the advantage in the fight.

Ironically, the web feeds off of TM the way studios are now feeding off of private funders. Both contribute in a significant way, but the end user and service delivery system – which the studios are now becoming – have little risk and a much better chance of generating profit with minimal overhead.

And like the film business, shrinkage is the future. (Sounds like another column to me.)

But it is ironic that while Bart has his eye on Paris Hilton’s ass, The Tribune Company and The New York Times decided to break embargo on the Harry Potter book. You can blame the web for leaking a copy all you want, but both rationalized their leaks based on weird breaks in the Potter shipping system. Sounds a lot like the “If I can get it in my hands, the door is wide open for me to do as I want,” recklessness of the web.

And again, if the LA Times actually has evidence of an online boycott of Fox, they should offer the facts. Their stories on the subject did not and do not. They offer platitudes and various takes on online and print and screening embargoes, but there is no evidence that CFCA is currently boycotting Fox or that anyone else is. Seems like TM was reporting out of gossip columns here.

And yes, I see there is pressure. But that is the difference between adults and children. Adults are supposed to have the maturity to know better. TM is supposed to be the adult here. The internet is still a maturing child, some elements better developed than others. If TM is worried about The Kids taking over, the way to handle it is not to start acting like the kids… just like real kids and adults.

Posted by poland at 12:08 PM | Comments (16)

Sunday Estimates by Klady

The most predictable number this weekend was Chuck & Larry. It’s at the bottom of the Sandler box office opening ladder in his current nine year run of consistency – when being “Adam Sandler” – but still, $110 million - $135 million is pretty much locked in. Watch for Ving Rhames to show up in TV spots this week, aiming to widen the audience a little with a masterful performance… about the only masterful thing in the film other than God’s effort on Ms. Biel. (Yes, even Steve Buscemi is walking through this one.)

Hairspray also has a big second week challenge. Now they got 3 or 4 million people to see the film… the next trick, which should have already started, is to convince America that there is a phenomenon in the making. If ever there was a call for audience interview spots, this is it. Sing out, Louise!

Ratatouille took a slightly greater than expected hit, most likely because of Hairspray. They should be staying on the underside of 35%, but there is only so long a film can push these days.

Transformers is already at about the number that will keep it ahead of Potter for the summer’s #4 slot. Pirates 3 is looking at $310m, which is probably too far for T-Fo to pass. This is one of those cases where a studio could actually push a second wave of ticket sales with some marketing dollars.

I’m not a fan of the film, but it remains a one-of-a-kind thrill ride for those who like watching gears spin and a daring spot with the ‘bots spoofing Potter, Hairspray, The Simpsons, etc could reengage conversation about the film. Imagine the existing images of the Autobots standing around, doing Simpsons imitations, talking wands or dance moves, just as Robot Chicken soon will. My guess is that the “honor of the franchise” will win that argument… which tells you why the movie was so pretentious.

Posted by poland at 11:00 AM | Comments (7)

July 21, 2007

Friday Estimates by Klady

Sorry this took so long to post today…

Anyway, the Chuck & Buck number is no surprise. It is a little lower than Sander is used to, long on a diet of openings between $37m and $47m. This one could squeeze into the lower end. And this number means, as per the Sandler norm, about $120 million domestic.

Hairspray is doing better than most thought, perhaps a full 50% better than any of the Box Office Hell estimaters estimated. New Line is pleasantly surprised too. And for all of you who are committed to “musical” and “gay” being synonymous, the story here will be young women, with an assist by gay men, and if it holds strong enough, a role as a major family film this summer. My fears of a marketing problem were off. Now, with a strong sampling, it’s up to the movie. And amazingly, beating the Sandler movie by summer’s end is now far from out of the question.

Harry Potter’s 59% drop is hardly a surprise… and it’s not because people are home reading the book (or waiting on line on Friday night). The last summer Potter film dropped 70% First Friday to Second Friday… with almost no competition in the marketplace. What kept this drop smaller was the expanded opening to Wednesday, which made the Friday less precocious.

The Potter movie universe is not terribly flexible five movies in… it is close to finite. They’ll get close to $210 million this weekend then slide in another $60 million or $70 million. Opening big is fine… it’s the number at the end that matters.

Speaking of that, Transformers should hit $260m this weekend, a bit over $275m by the end of next weekend, and slowly close on $300 million. Similarly, Ratatouille should slink to $200 million, paying for both Potter and Hairspray with some more millions.

Who figured License to Wed for a $45m - $50m grosser?

Posted by poland at 04:33 PM | Comments (35)

July 20, 2007

Box Office Hell - 7/20/07

Posted by poland at 05:05 PM | Comments (22)

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

If you want to know why there is a somewhat broken class system for critics in the minds of the studios, you have to look no further than the antics of Dann Gire, front man for the Chicago Film Critics Association.

And I am not talking about the rather absurd and self-congratulatory threat e-mail from Dann & The CFCA Board (a group that does not include Ebert, Roeper, Rosenbaum, Pride, or either of the Chicago Tribune’s main film writers) about an alleged boycott. And I say alleged because the only people who don’t have to answer to someone upstairs are the papers that don’t care about coverage. I have no idea who Dann Gire’s editor at the Daily Herald (a daily print paper with a web site), but I can only imagine how thrilled that editor might be were his/her reporter to tell him that he is not covering a movie because he was forced to see the free courtesy screening a week after Roger Ebert did.

But that is all beside the point.

The point is, all of this is about trust. Studios want to be able to trust the people they show their movies to before the release date. Critics want to be trusted to see the films in a reasonable amount of time before they have to publish a review.

And a week into an ongoing conversation with Fox, Dann Gire is busy talking to the LA Times, building his personal, ego-driven molehill into a mountain. (Of course, it helps that the LA Times is so willing – no, anxious – to build a story out of nothing, poorly reported and intentionally misleading about the internet element of the story, while they snicker up their own sleeves, confidant about their access to all studios as a major media outlet.)

It’s really simple. If you are negotiating something with someone else, you don’t talk to the media about it in the middle of the conversation… unless you are a manipulative jerk, a fool, or some combination thereof.

Does Dann Gire understand that one of the main reasons that Team DreamWorks will likely be out the Paramount door as soon as Stacey Snider can be sprung (having covered the now inevitable exit for a year now, I am pretty sure that BusinessWeek has the details of Snider’s escape clause wrong) is that Brad Grey has done exactly what Gire seems to be doing now… tooting his own horn in public when he really isn’t all that important a part of what is happening… but he can’t stop himself. And as Grey’s arrogance may bring down Paramount for years – his loss of a job if Team DreamWorks leaves being the small part of the story – Gire’s might close the door that was finally being opened by Fox.

One is, obviously, much more important than the other. But they are so much the same.

If you ask someone to trust you… if you are negotiating the terms of that trust to a beneficial end to both sides… if you break that trust while negotiating, you are proving your untrustworthiness.

Stupid!

And again, The L.A. Times is the straw that seeks to stir the poisoned drink here. A giant stew has been made of two quite different stories coming together at one moment and the resulting mush is being badly misreported by the LAT while it is also being spun by at least one former-journalist-turned-rage-monkey to try to satisfy his sense of injustice… which everyone in town who has dealt with his rage and often reckless embargo breaking, which is the real issue for studios, can only laugh at.

Would you know, reading the LAT ‘s desperately inflammatory gossip piece, that the Chicago Film Critics e-mail threat of boycott doesn’t mention “on-line” or “internet” at all? (I will now publish the entire threat e-mail here, which I have gotten from more than four sources, after the jump.) Here is what the LAT has spun:

“It's Day 10 of the Chicago Film Critics Assn. boycott on all Fox and Fox Searchlight films, a protest against the studio's practice of limiting online critics' access to screenings.”

An outright lie.

Like all good lies, there is some scent of truth, since the second part of this story is the late screening policy for The Simpsons… which was NEVER just about online. The all-media was set for next Thursday night – which I agree is onerous and overly restrictive, even if it is and was a policy that my relationship with the studio allows me to get around, even though it causes some others to shriek – but it was and is an ALL MEDIA, not an online screening. Of course there were and are considerations for the bigger media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times.

But this was not an event even mentioned in the CFCA e-mail threat… the straw that broke the back for them was Pathfinder, back in April.

Of course, in classic self-serving style, the CFCA waited until after the Die Hard and Fantastic Four films to file their “threat,” leaving The Simpsons as the only super-high profile film until next summer, allowing them to “boycott” without getting too much grief from the bosses. Clever… but gutless.

And now?

I have no idea how the bosses at Fox will react to all this. The LA Times is doing its best to muddy the waters and as always, make life as hard as possible for onliners by trying to turn this into some sort of online insurgence, when no such reality exists. Even their crap reporting that “Critics in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Texas, and several cities in Florida answered Chicago's call for support” is based only on Dann Gire’s word (note to LAT: if you are going to manipulate this guy to your own ends, spell his frickin’ pretentiously spelled name right) with ZERO follow-up with the other critics groups and ZERO indication of any action on their part. And no indication, again, of online being the issue!!!

And Dann Gire, who is apparently quite interested in creating a legacy for himself by appearing to by the force behind a policy change at the studios? Well, his big mouth may well have cost all critics on the second tier or lower dearly. Because history tells us – and I have been part of the effort to push studios towards more open behavior for a decade now – that when studios are embarrassed or fear being further embarrassed, they tighten up and make more restrictive rules, not less. Because the Number One rule of studios is, “We Don’t Want To Be Embarrassed.” Above money, love, and all that jazz… only ego damage is nearly impossible to fix.

There are plenty of things wrong with studios. But a wrong and a stupid self-indulgent wrong most certainly do not make a right. They make nothing but trouble and lazy copy in a quiet summer of little news.

We have seen the enemy… and it is us.

(The original CFCA letter that started all this media mess follows after the jump)

Subject: An Unfortunate Turn of Events

My Fellow Chicago Film Critics:

The following email has been sent on behalf of the CFCA members today. Please read it This is an action that we have heavily debated and considered. Now, it's up to you and other critics to decide what to do. Questions? Fire away.

Dann Gire

-----Original Message-----
From: Gire, Dann
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:49 PM
To: 'jgianopulos; 'trothman'
Cc: 'Julia.Perry'; 'Erin.Lowrey ; 'Carol.Cundiff'; 'Meredith.Lipsky'; 'John.Maybee'; 'Anna.McKean'

Subject: An Unfortunate Turn of Events

Jim Gianopulos, Chairman
Tom Rothman , Chairman
Fox Filmed Entertainment
Century City
Los Angeles, CA.

Dear Chairmen Gianopulos and Rothman:

In May of 2006, 26 members of the Chicago Film Critics Association signed a letter protesting the unfair business practices of 20th Century Fox. The studio showed its May 12 release "Just My Luck" to a handful of select Chicago media on May 8. It showed the movie to the rest of the CFCA on May 11, the night before the movie opened, in effect, forcing some critics to miss deadlines for opening day reviews. Our letter to Fox asked, "What does Fox gain by making it impossible for Chicago critics to do their jobs and compete with other outlets in a tough Midwest market? Not good will. Not respect. And not a healthy working relationship."

The letter detailed Foxís history of favoritism and discrimination, pointing out how only a few Chicago critics were allowed proper lead time to preview "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "The Sentinel" while the remaining local critics were only allowed to see the movie later, in many cases, after their deadlines. The CFCA letter said to Fox, "We are asking you to intercede to correct these discriminatory business practices. Fox has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adopting a uniformly fair and equitable policy of screening for professional film critics. Fox would enjoy
a smooth working relationship with the press and plenty of good will. Chicago's film critics would have an appropriate amount of time to reflect on movies and write crafted reviews instead of rushed pieces."

The letter pointed out, "It doesn't cost any more to show a Fox movie to 49 critics than it does to show it to four.
Everyone wins." The letter concluded with, "There is a better way and it doesn't cost any extra. But it requires Fox to take the lead and put behind us a period of frustration, distrust and discontent. Let's work together for the benefit of both our organizations. We just want fairness."

This letter was sent to regional and national Fox officials plus local PR reps in Chicago.

The CFCA received not a single response.

Not one.

On April 9, 2007, the CFCA sent another letter to Fox, this one addressed to Julia Perry, with copies to Tiffany Chen, Marisa Turner, John Maybee, Meredith Lipsky, Erin Lowrey, Erin O'Brien and Carol Cundiff. This letter detailed how Fox reps sent an invitation to film critics to an April 10th screening of "Pathfinder" at 2:30 p.m. Fifteen minutes later, those critics received a notice that the screening had been "canceled." What the majority of the CFCA members did not know is that a third confidential notice had been sent to select TV and daily outlets, announcing that a "new" screening had been set up in the exact time slot as the "canceled" screening. Only a few critics knew of this "new" screening while other members of the Chicago press were left with the impression the screening had been simply canceled.

The CFCA letter again called the studioís tactics "blatantly unfair" and reiterated its request for professional treatment and fairness. The CFCA asked that Fox's 2:30 p.m. screening of "Pathfinder" be opened for all CFCA members who could attend. "This act of consideration will be the beginning of a new, viable working
relationship between Fox and Chicago's journalists," the CFCA wrote.

Not a single additional critic received an invitation to "Pathfinder."

This time, one Fox executive did respond. On April 11, Carol Cundiff sent me this e-mail: "Did anyone get back to you (I hope)?" When I replied no, Cundiff wrote, "I will have Meredith (Lipsky) address this."

But Meredith didn't. Nobody from Fox ever did.

After a year of stonewalling and non-responsiveness, it is clear that Fox executives not only have no intention of addressing our repeated requests for fair treatment, but that they have no desire to even acknowledge our inquires and entreaties. This is very disappointing and unprofessional behavior from Fox executives, who may be one of the few, if not the only group of publicists in America who believe it's in their best interests to antagonize, alienate and ignore their clients, in this case Chicago's film critics.

After much deliberation, the CFCA Board of Directors has approved the following motion:

Whereas 20th Century Fox has repeatedly participated in unfair and discriminatory business practices in its invitations to press screenings of its movies for members of the Chicago Film Critics Assn.

And whereas CFCA leaders have repeatedly attempted to contact publicity officials at 20th Century Fox for purposes of discussing these unacceptable practices and working toward a fair and equitable solution for the betterment of all parties,

And whereas 20th Century Fox has repeatedly ignored CFCA requests to discuss its inconsistent screening practices, and stonewalled any attempt to reach a considered, judicious resolution,

And whereas the CFCA leadership has become convinced that 20th Century Fox publicists will continue to ignore future requests for discussion on these policies,

Be it therefore resolved that CFCAís Board of Directors calls for an action of protest against 20th Century Fox theatrical films.

Be it further resolved that this action of protest shall not be against critical reviews of Fox films, but against tangential film publicity such as interviews with celebrities and filmmakers, feature stories and other non-review stories and/or broadcasts that seek to publicize upcoming Fox motion pictures.

Be it further resolved that the CFCA encourages all its members, and members of other American film critics organizations, to join in this action of protest to express their disappointment that 20th Century Fox has refused to discuss or acknowledge its unprofessional, selective screening policies, and has stonewalled any attempt to acknowledge and/or address standing complaints about them.

Be it further resolved that this action of protest shall be terminated by the CFCA leadership if and when executives at 20th Century Fox agree to discuss and achieve a workable resolution to its unacceptable studio screening practices.

Be it further resolved that this action of protest shall be implemented against all films distributed by 20th Century Fox and its specialty subdivisions Fox Atomic and Fox Searchlight.

It truly saddens me that Foxís unprofessional conduct in dealing with our repeated requests for fairness has led to this action.

Back in 1990, 20th Century Fox announced Chicago critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were banned from all its press screenings. That era, thankfully, is gone. But must it be replaced by an era in which 80 percent of the Chicago Film Critics are banned instead?

Dann Gire, President
Chicago Film Critics Assn.

Board of Directors
Erik Childress
Dave Gathman
Alejandro Riera
Peter Sobczynski
Michael Wilmington

cc: CFCA members

Posted by poland at 12:52 PM | Comments (56)

Late Night At The Movies

It felt like good news for Hairspray at the Arclight in Hollywood on Thursday night. The 12:01am show in The Dome had about 500 people, about 90% of whom appeared to be under 30. That is the core audience if Hairspray is to be a hit, with due respect to the much-smirked about gay musical loving crowd.

On the other hand, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry was only about 15% full.

Of course, Los Angeles tends to be a horrible indicator and it is likely that the Sandler film will be #1 for the weekend, ahead of Hairspray. But still… a nice start, along with consistent reviews that keep saying, “It’s a crowd pleaser.”

Posted by poland at 03:35 AM | Comments (44)

July 19, 2007

Pull Quote For New Line

"Back in the 1950s, Broadway’s Finian’s Rainbow used song and comedy to more sincerely address the race issue. Hairspray merely wishes it away on waves of phony uplift and processed euphoria."
Armond White

New Line can only hope that ticket buyers get this message loud and clear.

Posted by poland at 05:49 PM | Comments (9)

In The Mail(er)

Posted by poland at 05:40 PM | Comments (3)

The Three Amigos Go To India

The trailer is tagged to Once this weekend... is it an indie Star Wars situation where art geeks go to the movies just to see the trailer? Could be.

Posted by poland at 05:05 PM | Comments (20)

ComicCon '07

I am doing everything I can to avoid going down to San Diego for ComicCon this year. So when I say that the event jumped the shark last year, I will understand if some of you point and laugh. But like Steve Martin’s comedy career, when it evolves from a convention of direct participation to a stadium concert, the jig is up for most people.

The question that came up in another thread was about Fox not participating – pulling out – this year.

The thing people need to realize is that the assumption that a lack of participation means something about the quality of the studio’s films is exactly what the problem with participating in events like ComicCon is. If you think logically about whether a ComicCon appearance has anything to do with a film being good, you can’t make the argument. Last year, Fox came with Borat, Pathfinder, Eragon, and Reno 911. Only Borat performed at the box office.

Serenity was at ComicCon and you would have thought it was the second coming. (In that case, I guess it was, literally.) And the movie opened to slightly more than The Geek 8 and did a nice, but limited multiple. But that is exactly the kind of movie that is great for a ComicCon appearance… an underdog with talent that isn’t going to be too demanding… that can work this particular crowd into a frenzy.

If you are WB, you know you will get the crowd crazy with anything Batman and anything from I Am Legend, and that any kind of glimpse at Emmerich’s 10,000 BC is chancy. Disney is hot for Enchanted, Narnia 2 and Wall E.

On the other hand, does Universal really have a reason to go? Will they have anything but directors’ videos from Hulk, Mummy, or Hellboy sequels?

But even they are in a better place than Fox. What would Fox take to San Diego? If they don’t produce the difficult-but-brilliant Doug Liman, the sure-to-be-booed Hayden Christensen, Sam Jackson and some footage from Jumper, they get killed on that. Who knows what the story with Babylon AD is… but again, no Diesel and/or Yeoh, no point. Is there Starship Dave footage? We know Eddie’s not going to San Diego.

So what do they get excited about? Alvin & The Chipmunks? Alien vs Predator 2?

I am not saying that the geeks don’t matter. They do. The problem is that they will show up for any movie that is well marketed to them – thus The Geek 8 or the $8 million they consistently add to opening weekends – or simply catches their fancy, no matter what the hype or the reviews. And they don’t seem to have an influence on audiences beyond their realm. $8 million, which usually leads to about $15 million over a film’s run, is nothing to sneeze at. But most of the movies spending scores of or hundreds of thousands to go to ComicCon need to reach beyond that base.

And the same way that studios becoming so dominant in the “indie” business, the massive events of these studio movies now overshadow the smaller movies that really could benefit from ComicCon. And again, this is not an anti-ComicCon thing… it is the same problem Sundance, Cannes, and other “arty” festivals face.

Anyway… consider this open space to talk about ComicCon as you like. I am not sure how much I have to add to the conversation.

Paramount Event Preview

New Spock.............New Kirk & Spock Meet

Posted by poland at 12:20 PM | Comments (21)

Old Dogs, New Tricks

Drama on the borders of the critical community continued this week, as some sloppy reporting on an e-mail sent to Fox by the Chicago Film Critics Association, led by Dann Gire, leaked out just as Fox was figuring out how to handle the issue raised by the letter, when and how studios screen movies for critics who are not amongst the studios’ idea of “the most important.”

The letter came shortly before Fox announced its intention to have an all-media screening the night before (Thursday 7:30p) The Simpsons opened. Even then, there was a premiere, a junket, and a couple early screenings (earlier on release week) scheduled for select outlets. Fox has now expanded their invitation list for the earlier screenings, though the largest part of the media list – print, TV, radio, and web - will still see the film on Thursday.

Fox is not the only studio struggling with the issues of how to screen. Sony became the NY Post’s favorite whipping studio when they chose not to preview a number of their films in the last couple of years. The question of embargo has been focused on by The New York Times in recent weeks, covering the tip of the embargo fight iceberg, which is still endlessly up in the air. Questions of who should be allowed to review when - and to what and whose ends - are challenging and almost everyone has a strongly felt self-serving answer.

I am not one for humiliating people for sport, so I won’t reprint any of the CFCA letter and its many “whereas”s and “be it further”s. It’s embarrassingly pretentious and could easily have been avoided by a couple of phone calls.

However…

Fox has made some real progress towards coming up with a well thought-out system to allow them to serve critics by previewing movies for critics in a reasonable timeframe while feeling that their business interests are being served by creating actual consequences for embargo breakers.

It may not seem complicated, but I can tell you that I have had many conversations about how onerous studio publicity departments feel the burden tracking the behavior of the hundreds of individual critics with whom they work is. Additionally, the studios are still struggling with the whole system of long lead writers, medium lead writers, and short lead writers. In the era of the internet – aka, "from now on" – the distinctions are getting blurrier and even feature writers are now adding critical and spoiling information to stories long before even internet critics get in their shots.

Of course, these issues only seem to come up in the wave of tension that expensive movies in summer tend to create or in the case of “critic-proof” crap that studios simply don’t see the value in exposing to people who like to put poison to quill.

From my perspective, it is the inconsistency that causes aggravation. As I tell every publicist who shows me any movie at any time, all I need is to be told the rules and I will happily abide… unless I sense that the rules have changed, at which time I will stick to my word unless given a go ahead… but I will ask.

But I have to acknowledge that I am in a unique place with the studios. There are often occasions when they open the door to me writing about a film before others have a chance to do so. And that creates another set of issues. (a different column)

To me, the most basic element of how we all operate with the studios is, “we are in business together on some level… be clear and fair about your rules and if we don’t live up to our end, punish us.” It may not seem like punishment to be left out of a BRATZ screening, but try explaining it to your editor.

I got involved with this story after the Los Angeles Times ran a story last Friday stating: “Today, however, studios are faced with online critics who post reviews moments after they exit the theater. Later screenings now help a studio control its online press.”

Of course, for a long time now the LA Times standard position has been to bash the web like a bunch of cranky grannies waiting for some on-liner to come change their bedpans. That is, until it is in their interest on their web outlets. (The Tribune Company’s Baltimore Sun became the first media outlet to review the new and final Harry Potter book today, breaking embargo by three days. The New York Times followed.)

But the irony is that the first (perhaps only) occasion of spoilers running regarding The Simpsons that I could find came on April 21, when the venerable Newsweek ran spoilers in the magazine and website more than three months before release.

In any case, rules are rules. If studios are concerned about spoilers getting out “moments after (on-liners) exit the theater,” they should simply set a clear embargo date and enforce removal from the guest list in future if embargo is broken. Same with print and television. While Fox is working to make sure that a workable system is in place for on-line and smaller print, TV m and radio journalists, it is unlikely that the Big Dogs will be punished for their infractions anytime soon. That is the balance of publicity nature.

To be fair, some studios have taken serious measures against some all-star feature writers who they felt were deceitful in the process of doing stories. But the studios still worked with the outlets, even if refusing access to a particular writer.

In the end, I think that Fox is making a significant step forward in this area. One initiative, suggested by the CFCA, was to make that critics group a local gateway to earlier screenings, with the threat of being dropped by the studio and the group if embargo agreements are broken. Seems fair to me, though it puts a bit of a burden on the critics groups involved.

Chicago has always been a uniquely unbalanced market with Roger Ebert (and partner) and The Chicago Tribune always being an access priority for studios and everyone else being on a second tier. As always, the screenings “you” weren’t invited to always become apparent and chafing has occurred. I think it remains any studio’s absolute right to screen something for Roger and/or The Trib before showing it to the rest of the crowd. On the other hand, there is a legitimate interest in seeing films with a reasonable time until deadline. And if a structure is in place, the ability to address such issues as studios delaying screening until the alt weeklies are past deadline for the week of release can start.

Finally, I don’t want to give the impression that other studios haven’t sweated and toiled over coming up with answers to these issues. But the rules still bend and blur all the time. If Fox can find a good working solution, others will surely follow that example. In the end, it is all about trying to have a good working relationship that works for everyone involved. We’re all – on both sides – just trying to do our jobs. It would be great if studios could be proud of showing every movie as widely as possible before release and it would be great if all journalists were always true to their word. But neither is assured.

When a guy like Joe Morgenstern feels insulted by being wanded entering a theater, I get that. But as the great Corleone said, “This is business and this man is taking it very, very personal.”

Can’t we all just get along?

Posted by poland at 01:34 AM | Comments (8)

July 18, 2007

Love Is All Around

I’m not quite sure why the Northwest Herald’s Jeffery Westhoff was compelled to post his Transformers review twice, with slightly different leads, but he did.

In the first review, headlined, “'Transformers' lacks plot, dialogue and direction,” he leads with:

“The Transformers, those robots disguised as jets and sports cars, arrive in theaters battling one of the most malevolent forces in the galaxy: Michael Bay.”

The second version is titled, “Michael Bay turns ‘Transformers’ into pile of scrap metal” and leads:

“Whatever chance that “Transformers,” which is based on the toys that debuted in the 1980s along with a cartoon and a comic book, might have been a decent movie disappeared the moment Bay was hired to direct.”

Or perhaps it was the other way around. Did DreamWorks force a headline change? Who knows?

Westhoff continues, amongst his many bon mots aimed at M-Bay:

“For all its other deficiencies, “Transformers” fails because it is a Michael Bay film, terrible for the same reasons all this egomaniacal hack’s films are terrible. Bay has no discipline, no style, no concern for story, no sense of rhythm. He just piles on and plows ahead: big, dumb and loud. Doesn’t matter if his star is Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck or a giant robot that turns into a truck, Bay renders them all irrelevant with his sun-baked cinematography and ever-swaying camera.”

Michael Bay responds:

“To the Editor:

The Northwest Herald’s movie critic, Jeffrey Westhoff, seems to be woefully out of touch with pop culture.

The Transformers movie’s $155 million seven-day haul is the biggest non-sequel opening in box office history. Numbers like that usually mean positive word of mouth on the film is huge, and people are going back.

A friend of mine, Steven Spielberg, he’s pretty smart about film, said Westhoff’s review was idiotic. Westhoff’s a critic who actually reviewed his dislike for the director, rather then reviewing the movie, like his job description prescribes. Westhoff talks about the director being an “egomaniacal hack.” Well I don’t believe I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting Westhoff, though it sounds like he knows me. If Westhoff actually did know me, he would find me to be a pretty down-to-earth, nice guy.

I implore the editor to give Westhoff a little relaxation and sunshine, clear his head, let him rediscover that movie-going is supposed to be a fun experience.

Maybe even help him get rid of his hatred.

Michael Bay
Director of Transformers
Los Angeles, Ca.”

Posted by poland at 11:02 PM | Comments (44)

Whose Taste Is It Anyway?

After reading response to the conversation about Studio 60, it struck me that it would be fascinating for someone to do a research project on people's preferences for certain shows or movies and whether there is sociological subtext.

You know how certain friends like certain things and hate others? What connects commenters Cadavra and BiPed on Suckio 60? Or is there just one element of a crappy show lighting up two intelligent people for completely different reasons, leaving the rest of their tastes utterly diverse?

I have an interest in great part because of the feedback in here... and the people who I am often surprised disagree with me on this movie or that. The internet has a lot of angry, harsh discourse. But beyond that, there are opinions that simply diverge, biases going in, and positions coming out. Movie marketing seeks a lowest common denominator, so they seek the answer, but perhaps a less honorable answer.

I doubt there is any potential absolute test for taste. But a detailed analysis of personality and taste could really turn heads... or at least comfort us in our diversity.

Hmmm….

Posted by poland at 01:01 PM | Comments (78)

July 17, 2007

New Look

Simpson Your Avatar

First Draft

Posted by poland at 10:41 PM | Comments (6)

Must Not See TV Fails…. Excuses At 11

Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip was really simple to figure out. Yes, some of you loved it. Enjoy the obscurity.

It failed because…
a) It was about a comedy show, but it was never funny.
b) The structure of the company of characters made no sense, either dramatically or in comparison to the reality of doing a weekly live comedy.
c) Somehow we were supposed to believe that Amanda Peet had risen to her job running a network at an unusually early age because, ha, she deserved to… and then there was no indication of her being anything but a fuck up.

But the main reason it failed was…
#1) Aaron Sorkin turned yellow.

He wrote a show about producing a weekly television show that was based on his years of writing TV drama and instead of just admitting it was based on his experience, he tried to cover by making it about a live comedy show, which he clearly understood nothing about.

He put Amanda Peet in the role of the power woman because it was “good TV,” not because he had any ideas about what it meant to be a young woman in that position and how that might actually work. Unlike Rob Lowe in The West Wing, this choice was fatal because even in the first season, there was no way of getting out of the “she’s the hook” trap.

He did obnoxiously superficial work writing about a recovering addict in a position of pressure and responsibility. The honest discussion of this tough situation, which he has experienced, would have been compelling. The Guy From Friends smirking occasionally around a bar and indulging his interest in an addictive relationship from his non-sober life played for light froth was the kind of lie that people feel even if they can’t explain why it feels so false.

Did I mention… the comedy wasn’t funny? The highest-ranking comic on the show was DL Hughley, stuck in fourth banana (at best) position and never doing what he does best. Sorkin could have taken the cast of the latest Groundlings show and let them improvise the shows and actually had a shot at something that was at least amusing.

In any case, Sorkin was taught (though it appears in this mea no culpa piece by Patrick Goldstein – which drags sweet Paul Haggis into the issue for no good reason other than to make the “other successful people fail on TV” excuse – that he has learned nothing but how to pretend to take responsibility before blaming everyone else) that writing about yourself is STUPID unless you are emotionally far enough away to get some comic perspective (High Wilson and WKRP, Larry David and Seinfeld, Tina Fey and 30 Rock, etc.). If YOU are the hero of your drama, you are better off on a couch instead of in front of a computer keyboard. (As in, the It’s Fine If You’re Scout, But Not Atticus Finch Rule.)

Goodbye Studio 60... you hardly knew ya...

Posted by poland at 12:46 PM | Comments (41)

July 16, 2007

Twice The Crazy... Half The Journo

ADDED: 7/18, 12:18a - From WWD's Wed edition - EDITOR’S NOTE: A WWD article on Hollywood writer Nikki Finke, published on July 6, page 16, was pulled last week from the paper’s Web site, wwd.com. The article, by WWD features writer Jacob Bernstein, depicted Finke as a highly controversial but influential writer in Hollywood circles. The story reflected interviews with more than 40 sources and drew fair conclusions regarding the tone and nature of Finke’s ongoing coverage. However, the decision to pull the story from the Web site was based on confusion over Bernstein’s taping of a conversation he had with Finke.

As far as I can tell, this is sort of inane rationalization for a major publication pulling a story to avoid aggravation. It's even more ugly since there is no indication that Ms. Finke was not on the record, misquoted, or in any way defamed by any untruth in the article. She was just apparently unaware of (or confused about) how Mr Bernstein was taking his notes (by recorder). Unfortunate, but doesn't that mean that the on-the-record subject of the story was being as precisely quoted as possible?

This is the first time I have heard of a story being pulled for being "too accurate." (And smart assedness aside, I have never heard of a story spiked because the reporter didn't clearly inform the subject who agreed to be on the record that they were being taped.)

I wish I could offer more clarity, but given the late hour and the source of this information demanding that no follow up questions be asked, none is available. But it seems to me that regardless of their cowardly choice to dissapear a story, WWD stands behind the accuracy of their reporter's work. So I feel good about keeping it available to the world on this blog, the story now having evolved into being an evidenciary fact in a bigger news story about the media's willingness to censor itself... even if it does grossly overstate the influence of one of our finest young gossip bloggers.

===========================================

A July 6 story in Women’s Wear Daily story on Nikki Finke disappeared off the web after Nikki went on the attack. (The media is more scared of “Crazy” Nikki than almost anyone… such bravery in the fourth estate!)

I had no idea the story had run until I started getting shards of information about what had happened… then I got the whole story… and damned if, once again, Nikki didn’t go jihad against a story that was so over-the-top generous to her that if she were a studio, it would be the source of quotes from now to opening.

Maybe Nikki just realized how humiliating it was to have her “best friend” be the "source" telling everyone how important she was.

In any case, I am running the whole story here. I may have comments to make later. You can make yours as you like when you like.

Womens’ Wear Daily on Nikki Finke by Jacob Bernstein

Nikki Finke is not your average Hollywood entertainment journalist.

For one thing, she professes to have no interest in most of what appears in movie theaters. In fact, she barely seems to leave her house. “I hate cocktail parties,” she says. Plus, she adds “I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic.” For another, she’s not remotely starstruck. “I could care less about Brad Pitt,” she says dismissively. But what really sets Finke, 53, apart from the pack is her attitude toward the industry’s executives, whom she chronicles obsessively on her blog and whom she by and large seems to hate.

On Deadlinehollywooddaily.com, which she writes for the Web site of LA Weekly, Finke has suggested Rupert Murdoch is senile, called Barry Diller “an arrogant SOB,” and referred to Sumner Redstone as “a septuagenarian jerk.” Three weeks ago, she laid into HBO for its “lousy” “Sopranos” ending and advised readers to cancel their subscriptions to the station. “David Chase clearly didn’t give a damn about his fans,” she complained about the series’ creator. “He crapped in their faces. This is why America hates Hollywood.”

(continued)
Almost anyone writing like this would be ignored or laughed at. But when Finke sinks her teeth into something, people increasingly take notice. In February, she reported the discord between executives at DreamWorks and Paramount, which had co-financed “Babel” and “Dreamgirls,” both of which were awards season favorites. The suits at Paramount denied the story up and down, but a few weeks later, The New York Times ran a juicy interview with DreamWorks’ Steven Spielberg in which the director conceded all of the essential points laid out earlier by Finke’s article.

On the Friday of Memorial Day weekend this year, Finke broke the news that NBC entertainment president Kevin Reilly was about to be replaced by Ben Silverman, the producer of “The Office” and “Ugly Betty.” Her longtime friend Bernie Weinraub, who covered Los Angeles for The New York Times, says, “She’s the most important journalist in Hollywood today. She sets the agenda for what appears elsewhere.”

At a time when The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post and Gawker serve as global billboards for a reporter’s scoop, Finke has vaulted to the front of a new pack of journalists who lack the backing of a major news organization but manage nevertheless to wield a similar level of influence. And people in Hollywood are clearly playing ball with her, even if they won’t say so publicly. “I generally admire her,” says one well-known producer who takes her calls. “She does her homework and breaks news.” “I read her religiously,” says a studio executive, who requested anonymity lest he antagonize his own boss, who gets scorched by Finke.

But others see Finke as being emblematic of what’s most dangerous about the Web < a Walter Winchell in cyberspace who emotionally blackmails people into giving her information and uses her perch to settle scores with those she dislikes. “She’s a monster,” one Hollywood heavyweight says. “And people are giving her power and talking to her because they’re afraid of her.” As with everything, Finke’s response to this varies about as much as the time of day. “I’m just the messenger,” she says during one of many telephone conversations from her apartment in Los Angeles.

“It’s not my fault these people do what they do to each other. It’s not my fault they make stinky movies. I just report it.” During another, she says, “Would I like to cure Hollywood? Yes.”
___

Nikki Finke grew up well-to-do in New York, a Jewish debutante in an era when the term was practically an oxymoron. She attended The Hewitt School and then Wellesley.

“I was raised to be a vase on a mantlepiece and a corporate wife and I have rebelled against it my entire life,” says Finke, who had a marriage that ended in the early Eighties. “I don’t like authority and I don’t like people in power.” She started her journalism career at the Associated Press followed by a brief stint at the Dallas Morning News, then went on to spend much of the Eighties at Newsweek, based in Washington, and then Los Angeles. In 1987, she got scooped up by the Los Angeles Times, then went on to contract writing jobs at The New York Observer and New York magazine.

She delivered big scoops on Harvey Weinstein’s aggressive Oscar campaigning, Michael Ovitz’s Machiavellian business tactics and was also known for lots of interoffice drama. “She was legendarily late with stories and on a weekly that’s a problem,” says Lisa Chase, who edited her at The Observer. One week, Finke’s writer’s block was so bad Chase had her dictate her reporting into the phone as Chase transcribed it and turned it into a column. “But we got it done and it was great,” the former editor says. In 2000, Finke’s tenure at New York magazine ended. According to two sources at the magazine, they’d seen no copy from her in six months.

Her excuses for this, they say, evidently ran the gamut from the benign to the baroque, and included having been evicted from her apartment and having had her electricity turned off. Another week, a column was allegedly held up at deadline because back up documents were not sent into the magazine on time, one of the sources says. Finke’s alleged explanation was that they’d been held up by of a bomb threat at LAX. “We checked,” recalls the source. “There were no reports of a bomb threat.”

“I’m Calamity Jane,” Finke says, confirming the first two anecdotes. “I was being evicted and my electricity was turned off. I had no money.” She says she has no recollection of the incident involving back up documents. She continues, “I’ve had huge self-destructive streaks. There was a lot of drama in my personal life, and that sometimes spilled into the office. Some of it was people exaggerating, some of it was me.” She scored a book deal with Random House to write an account of the agency business, then never delivered the final product.

“She was a hell of a reporter, and she would tell us incredible stuff,” says the publisher at the time, Joni Evans. “She could dazzle you with amazing stories and they all seemed to be real. But getting it down on paper, she couldn’t do.” (“My agent has the manuscript now, and it’s going out next week,” Finke counters.)

In 1999, Finke got up and walked out of a job interview with Kurt Andersen and Michael Hirschorn at Inside.com. (“I thought Michael was kind of a jerk and finally I just said, “I don’t want to do this,” is the way Finke remembers it.) Shortly thereafter, she was hired by the business section of the New York Post. A few months into the job, she wrote a story about a legal dispute between The Walt Disney Co. and the family that owns the commercial rights to Winnie The Pooh. In court filings, Disney admitted to trashing files related to the case.

Finke’s article compared Disney’s actions to Enron and its accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which was then in the news for having shredded documents.

Massive complaints ensued from Disney and Finke was fired. In a statement, the Post said there’d been “serious inaccuracies” with a number of her stories. “It was bulls--t,” Weinraub says of News Corp.’s allegation. “I never knew her to make anything up,” says Lisa Chase. Finke sued Disney and News Corp. for libel and they agreed to settle out of court.

Still, victory didn’t help her job prospects. “It was a case where the cure was worse than the disease,” recalls Finke, who could not discuss the terms of the settlement because of a mutual non-disparagement clause. “Nobody would hire me. I remember going into Starbucks one day, and I thought, they have good health benefits. Maybe I’ll become a barrista.” Happily, a former L.A. Times colleague was now editing the LA Weekly. The paper gave her a column, though at first she had to work without a contract. Her targets still griped about what she wrote, but alternative newspapers usually encourage reporters to be indignant about anything involving a boardroom and a corporate jet, which made it a good fit with Finke’s ethos.

“These companies have shareholders,” she says. After lots of prodding her editors for her own Web site, Deadlinehollywooddaily.com, went live in March 2006, marking the real turning point in her ongoing saga. A blog is a pretty powerful weapon in the hands of a reporter with lots of opinions.

Suddenly her vendettas and her inability to deal with authority became assets. She has been particularly harsh on Weinstein, who’s had a difficult run since leaving Disney. And she’s been a constant thorn in the side of Brad Grey, the head of Paramount. Others who wind up in Finke’s line of fire sometimes explain her success by saying she’s right just enough that everyone has to keep reading her.

A few months ago, Finke reported that Grey went to a dinner party in
Hollywood, where he made a number of disparaging comments about DreamWorks’ David Geffen. It turned out Grey hadn’t even been there. Finke then changed the item, attributing the remarks to Redstone, whom she said was quoting Grey. “I was mistaken,” she says, “but it was [wrong] for maybe half an hour.”

When Geffen wound up in a war with the Clintons over disparaging comments he’d made about them to The New York Times, Finke reported Sen. Hillary Clinton’s mouthpiece Howard Wolfson was not long for the job. Several months later, he has yet to be fired. “That’s what my source told me,” says Finke, as if she bears no responsibility for reporting something that didn’t pan out. Still, the more surprising thing is how often she’s right.

“My problem, it’s a tragedy actually,” she says, “is that I’m a Cassandra. I’m a canary in a f---g coal mine.”

(A disclaimer: Included among the projects Finke has trashed was the movie “Bewitched,” which was directed by this reporter’s mother, Nora Ephron. Finke wrote it wasn’t going to succeed. She turned out to be correct.)

In her cartoon-like universe, Hollywood becomes an endless series of gods and monsters, heroes and villains, predators and victims. Tracking the site’s treatment of Finke’s heroes may provide clues about the identities of her sources. Several of her former editors named Universal Studios president Ron Meyer as a fountain of information for her over the years.Here’s how his contract extension was handled on her blog: “It’s not only a miracle. It’s certainly a footnote in the history books of showbiz…” Meyer did not respond to requests for comment.

“I haven’t talked to Ron in weeks,” Finke claims. Last month, she swatted at Page Six for a snarky item it wrote about former HBO head Michael Fuchs, who is said by some industry sources to be a confidant of Finke’s. The gossip column implied he was a bitter washout. “Not so,” began Finke’s refutation. “Fuchs is producing a TV series whose pilot script is being written now for HBO. It’s a dark one-hour comedy about corporations from the top down. Who better to know about this than Fuchs, right?”

“He’s really out of entertainment, he’s not really a source,” says Finke. She frequently complains reporters don’t acknowledge that she broke the news first when they follow her items up in their own publications. “They never credit me,” she says. This is surprising to her, she explains, because Finke contends she almost never personally insults other reporters in print, even when noting their inaccuracies.“

Very rarely will I raise their names,” Finke says. “I know what the process is like. It’s unfair to criticize individuals.”

Except of course when she does. Since January, Finke has dumped on the L.A. Times’ Kim Christensen, Chuck Philips and James Rainey; The New York Times’ Bill Carter; Variety’s Anne Thompson; The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, and Portfolio’s Amy Wallace, all of whom she mentioned by name.

From time to time, Finke’s colleagues have thrown the book at her… then it’s war. Former Gawker editor Jesse Oxfeld made the mistake of calling her crazy for a piece that appeared about her last year. Which caused Finke to flip her lid, though there’s a strange logic to this since going ballistic on the people who call you insane generally makes them fearful about calling you insane again. Finke puts her reaction in the past, saying, “I made a mistake.” But she thinks the criticism itself stinks of misogyny.

“Women who have strong opinions are subjected to unbelievable attacks,” she says. Finke also professes to be hurt that the Web column hasn’t led to more job offers. “None of them want me,” she complains. “They don’t want me personally. They don’t want my reporting. I got one job offer and it was from Mediabistro.” But about this, she’s aware it might be for the best.

“I’m not good with bosses,” she admits. “And I love what I do now. I love this Web site. It’s the most fantastic and freeing thing in the world. I make my deadlines. I decide what I write. I have total control.”

Posted by poland at 04:08 PM | Comments (73)

July 15, 2007

Late Entry Stat Of The Day (aka The Lost World Thread?)

It suddenly occured to me that there was an odd circumstance that allows us to look at Transformers not only 3-day vs 3-day (est 49% drop), but Week One vs Week Two.

Of course, the opening Monday was only shows after 8p... though that actually works for the film's benefit in this stat as it assured that the second Monday would be bigger, assuring less of a drop. But here we go...

You can do the math, but that's a 56.5% drop, putting Transformers more in line with most big opening drops. I expect pretty much the same (or marginally worse) for Harry Potter V, which should be right around the same 7 day number as T-Fo.

Further extending the analogies, the second week drop for T-Fo was about the same as Shrek The Third's 2nd weekend and after two weekends amd a day, T-Fo will be about $10 million ahead of S3. Six weekends later, if T-Fo paced S3 further, it would stop at about $325 million.

However, that would suggest Potter at over $300 million also, which only happened on the first film. And I don't expect that to happen.

Again... at these heights, stats (and the marriage of reality & perception) go out the window...

Posted by poland at 11:44 PM | Comments (136)

Weekend Estimates by Klady

Posted by poland at 10:23 AM | Comments (64)

July 14, 2007

A Fascinating Book Review

In this week's New Yorker, Louis Menand reviews Bryan Caplan's Democracy; Voters, Voting; Elections; “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad.

Reading the notions that the problem with democracy is letting all those idiots - and smart people who don't seriously consider what their vote might mean - vote at all, it stuck me as often analagous to the ongoing discussion of the box office and whether popular means "good," or even "liked."

Good weekend stimulation.

Posted by poland at 05:49 PM | Comments (7)

Friday Estimates by Klady

The box office story of Summer ’07 is turning out not to be the massive openings, so much as the massive openings leading to shockingly tiny multiples. Spider-Man 3 and Shrek The Third, as it has turned out, are the only mega-releases to actually sit on a Friday release date. The game moved to a Thursday-with-Wed-night-screenings for Pirates, then Tues-with-Mon-screenings for Transformers and now Potter opening as close to on top of Transformers as possible.

But the question is, what does all the front-loading lead to… and aside from media drool, has the industry now taught ticket buyers to disregard “#1 in America” the way they have learned to disregard critics reviews?

Spider-Man 3 is looking at a domestic multiple of 2.2 and Shrek 3 at 2.6. For my sanity, on these other movies, the multiple formula I think is fair is “Opening = Gross At The End Of The First Sunday.” So instead of Pirates 3 being a 2.7 multiple, it’s really at 2.4.

So where does that leave Transformers and Harry Potter V?

By the standards of the Big Three, with $155m after the first Sunday, Transformers is theoretically looking at $341m and $418m. However, the expansive opening seems like it is already changing that analysis, as the Second Friday is being estimated at $11.1m, lower than Pirates 3’s $12.8m, Shrek 3’s $14.2m or Spidey 3’s $17.2m.

As I have long written, when you get to these numbers, it is all chop suey. Potter’s Friday is $3.7m ahead of Transformers… but Transformers was $18 million ahead of Potter by end of business Friday thanks to a day and a half of more screenings and perhaps, more interest. It looks like the 3-day estimates by geekalysts will all be over, with the first Wednesday Potter opening leading to the softest First Friday in the series’ history… though hardly a suckfest. Expect about $77 million for the weekend, a $139m total, and another final domestic gross between $250m and $290m, just where the other films landed, regardless of all this RECORD RECORD RECORD talk.

As for Transformers, not hitting $300m would be a shock at this point. Pirates 3 limped there and it was $12 million behind Transformers at the end of the Seco