The Hot Blog

This is certainly a _______ opening for the movie _________. Let's give a big ________ to the studios involved by making this easily the ______ of the entire summer crop. As far as ________ from last week, the change of ______ means a whole lot of _______ that spells ________ for _______ in particular. Look for the ______ morons to tell us on Sunday it means _______. But of course we all know that numbers like this so ________ in the season is completely _______. To quote the legendary _______: "Welcome to the _____."

I said Superbad would make more than 100 million. In case anyone forgot.

Wow, Crow... you're so predictable!

Oh you know I love ya, Dave.

i believe crow's post to be the most brilliant ever.

On another topic.

Do the Weinstein's just exist to dump shit into theaters and lose money?

Did the Last Legion really open at 2000 screens and make that little money?

seriously, the downfall of the Weinstein Company as a viable machine to make and promote films is just mind boggling.

Don't we hear a similar story every time a film aimed at teens opens unexpectedly well, or a film aimed at African-Americans open unexpectedly well, or... I guess what I'm asking is, just who are the trackers, and who are they tracking?

It would be funny if some kid with a fake ID named "McLovin" snuck into the movie.

I wonder if any of the big PG/PG-13 movies got some of the Superbad business from under 17s. Possibly RH3 and BU got a little bump.

The only bad news that comes with an opening like this for Superbad is that every studio in town is now looking to make their own PG-13 version of Superbad right now, with better looking leads.

Bourne will be above 160 domestic after three weeks of release. How exactly is it not gonna make 200, Dave? Sometimes I feel like you stick to pronouncements just for the sake of them.

To these eyes, Greg Mottola did a pedestrian job directing the film and it would have been improved by 25% by hiring any number of better directors. I don't see what he has to complain about. The direction hardly distinguished itself.

The Carpetmuncher,

You don't know shit about directing comedy. End of story. List "any number." There are maybe three working guys that would do as good of a job or better. Most would fuck it up.

I don't mean to be an asshole, but directing comedy is not an easy gig. Superbad has a great consistent look that never gets in the way of the characters, the comedy, or the tone of the film. You have to have a good sense of humor and know when and where a sense of style is necessary or permittable. The only guy in the world that knows how to make a visually kinetic and excitin comedy without hurting the film is Edgar Wright. He even adds to the laugh count with his style. The Coen Bros. are great at what they do, and even Ben Stiller had a cool (if not unique) approach to helming Zoolander, but the best comedy directors don't worry about looking cool. They worry about the film being funny.

Agian Joe... people who are publishing tracking info mostly don't have the full tracking report and the few who get it from someone don't really know how to read it... and for that matter, the tracking companies often misanalyze it as well. It is not meant to be as accurate a predictor as people using it to predict each week suggest.

And yes, it is infamously not a good detailed judge of young kids or ethnics or teens. What it does do - which is its primary purpose - is to let marketers know how much penetration they are getting, so they can adjust (or not) their campaigns.

Unfortunately, the fact that everyone now thinks they know how to read the tracking means that there are insider pressures that create problems. For instance, if tracking shows one movie is close to another, one studio might be pressured to increase advertising to try to win the weekend... but that possibility may well be a phantom... as RH3 beating Superbad was this weekend. Alternately, a studio might be overly precious with a release because they are trying to get something to move on tracking that will never move... as happened on Borat.

It's math, fnt...

This weekend, $160m... next weekend, $175m... the next weekend, $183m.

Now you're up against 3:10 to Yuma, then The Brave One, etc. Keeping screens, you're looking at $188m, $192m, etc.

Could Universal do a Superman Returns and run ads and fight for screens to force the movie to $200m by Oct 1? Sure. But that is not normal Universal behavior. And they don't have a stake in forcing this movie to $200m, since they will still be above the first two.

You may love me, Crow, but you are shooting at fish in a barrel. Those who can't be bothered to do... mock.

The Potter comparison is unfair. The movie is still well ahead of Sorcerer's Stone and Goblet of Fire through this point, but is shedding its theatre count at a much faster rate than the other two due to competition...and those movies had Christmas to add to their legs. If this movie had unspooled in December, $300 mil was probably a lock. Just a strange decision on the part of the studio.

Wow, Rothchild, your enlightened sophisticated take on comedy direction really changed my thinking on this. I have now seen the light and understand that Greg Mottola is the second coming of Preston Sturges.

Out of the Apatow pals alone, I would take Apatow, Jake Kasdan, or the great Harold Ramis.

But whatever. Apparently to some Edgar Wright is now the archetypal comedy director.

Me, I'd point to Adrienne Shelly's brilliant work on WAITRESS (RIP) as the kind of excellent comedy writing and direction that isn't seen very often. Spoof's like Wright's are amusing but hardly have much to offer beyond a criticism of movie culture. While Shelly's ability to find comedy in real life situations and characters in WAITRESS was incredibly sophisticated even in it's hilarity. And actually has something to say about real people.

As much as I liked/loved Superbad, I stand by my criticisms of it's direction and writing, and think both were carried by the appealing cast.

You listed the three guys I would have listed. That's surprising. And I really enjoyed Waitress, but there were no huge laughs in the film. It was insightful, delicate, and really moving at times...but it was never insanely funny. How do you think she would have executed that script? Remember, the issue was that you felt there were "any number of directors" that would have done a better job on Superbad.

And Edgar Wright's films aren't spoofs.

"And Edgar Wright's films aren't spoofs."

Thank you.

I get so tired of hearing people lump films like Shaun of the Dead in with Scary Movie as 'spoofs'

Well, they're not *just* spoofs, but guys? They're kinda spoofs. Or, if that term raises your hackles too much, they are "take-offs on the genre."

If both of you listed Jake Kasdan as among the three best comedy directors working, you clearly did not see "The TV Set." But that's OK, no one did! Here's hoping "Walk Hard" is better.

i think of spoofs as something like a film by Brooks or Zucker.

I think they make original comedies using the structure of a genre, but rarely is there any winking to the camera.

which is funny, since there's a scene in shaun where he's literally winking into the camera.

I saw The TV Set. I also loved The TV Set. It was a movie made for five people, but it's a little gem of a movie.

As one of the six people who actually saw The TV Set I would argue that a Jake Kasdan directed Superbad would have been listless and inert and in love with its own perceived cleverness. I also find it intriguing how the same person slapping around Edgar Wright as a "spoof" director is praising the director of Walk Hard, which judging from the trailer (admittedly a dicey proposition) smacks of a ZAZ rehash of Walk the Line.

Walk Hard is more of an Anchorman take on Walk the Line, Ray, and that entire genre.

So how is that different from Wright's genre-tweaking work? Seems like an issue of semantics to me.

My statement about Walk Hard had nothing to do with Edgar Wright. I just thought, since I'd seen it, it would be beneficial to give a clear take on what the movie is and its sense of humor.

I find The Carpetmuncher's description of Waitress odd as that movie played more like a fairy tale or a fable to me. All gauze and beatific light.

And anyone who doubts Greg Mottola's directing chops need only look at the "Storming the Castle" episode of Arrested Development or "Valerie Demands Dignity" from The Comeback. I also think The Daytrippers is a really accomplished film for its tiny budget.

Maybe satire is a better way to describe Shaun of the Dead than spoof. Though Thank You For Smoking would seem a better recent example of satire, I guess they both fit under the umbrella.

I enjoyed The Daytrippers, but it's pretty dry and forgettable with a lame twist. Nice acting, but there's a reason it got Mottola into TV and not movies.

Directing for TV is much different than directing movies. If it wasn't, guys like Andy Ackerman would be directing movies. Ken Kwapis is an excellent TV director, but it doesn't translate at all to his movies.

With Waitress, I agree that it played like a fairy tale, which is what gave it it's charm - what I would call total command of tone. So I was off some saying it "finds comedy in real life situations" - what I really meant was that it evoked real human emotion.

Superbad does this at times, including the great shot on the elevator alluded to earlier, and the "morning after" moment with the two guys at the end of the film (a scene totally ripped from Y Tu Mama Tambien, but whatever). But it's tone switches back and forth from realistic high school moments (just cited) to American Pie fantasy moments (see McLovin gets laid, or scenes with the cops). There is a way to make all this work together (see Dazed & Confused). I certainly think a director with more of a vision could have held this together better.

Now I don't think Jake Kasdan is among the best comedy directors working today, but was just citing him as an example of a guy in Apatow's circle I thought would do a better job. And admittedly, I can't defend TV SET, which I enjoyed but hardly consider a great film. I would put people Jason Reitman well above Kasdan, and Wes Anderson and Spike Jonez and Michael Gondry and a number of other people above both. These are guys with real comedic vision. I'm not convinced Mottola really has a vision, other than not letting the camera get in his actors way.

Heat; the Harry Potter slamming always seems a bit odd. Five movies in... they get the best movie and the series continues to THRIEVE. Who cares if it will be #3 domestically and abroad? We all know why that is, but you refuse to put that into the equation. You are so ridged with your analysis sometimes. Finally, Ethan G, we went almost a year and a half without a Potter movie. It was time to put OotP out in the Summer. Much like it will be time to put out the Deathly Hallows PT 1 in the Summer 2010 and PT 2 in the Fall of 2010. Yes; that's my fan heavy speculation, but Warners has an opportunity to make 8 movies instead of seven. Why leave money on the time, when the Deathly Hallows can be cut into two films that could total around 5 hours put together. It would seem a bit odd for Warners to not go the extra mile to finish this story as strongly as possible.

Miami Heat is not bashing Potter. To a larger extent, he's talking about front-loading. Potter has its audience, which is good for $250-280 in the US every time out, until perhaps the last movie where there will be a significant uptick. What's interesting is that more and more, Potter is frontloading its business - while still ending up with the same final #'s. This is not a good or a bad thing - particularly when the final #'s are around 4th or 5th biggest of the year.

As far as Greg Mottola, I don't know what else he's done theatrically. He did do some great episodes of Undeclared though, as did Jake Kasdan. This Rogen/Apatow humor does actually need a direct that "gets" it, and I just don't think there are many out there with the know-how outside of the guys that have worked with Apatow on Freaks and Undeclared. It's no "coincidence" that Superbad is getting great reviews - some of that credit needs to go to the director, as good as the cast and script are. If the movie was a real piece of shit that had what many considered a great script and cast, I could see putting blame at Mottola's feet. But that aint the case.

Jason Reitman? He's made all of one movie, and the only sensibility I got from that movie was Alexander Payne's, the director he was most clearly ripping off (down to the freeze frames).

Yes, it's not bashing at all.

The point is that people wet their pants over the openings and we have seen this summer than no matter what the opening, the films have settled into pretty much expected numbers. Transformers is very big, but not the biggest film of the summer or year. Spider-Man wins the summer by having a second week without competition, unlike the other two of the Big Three. Etc.

Everyone is obsessed with bashing these days... but I am not.

... which is not to say I never bash.

But my comments, on say, Knocked Up, have nothing to do with me thinking it's overrated. The audience is mostly older and like Prada, it wants to be fed. And again, I like the film a lot. I just didn't think it was close to 40YOV good.

And I don't mean to be bashing Mottola. I mean, it's not like there is ANY blame at all to go around on SUPERBAD! It's a huge success, and everyone involved should get the proper dap for it over time.

I'm not at all convinced that Jonze or Anderson or Gondry would have made a better Superbad. Perhaps a more stylized take on the material, but that's not necessarily something it needed. Honestly, I think with the quality of the cast and the script, the worst case scenario for this film would have been a director that tried to morph it into their own, creatively different vision. Mottola may not have made any huge auteur marks with this film as a director - but IMO that's something that should be applauded, not denigrated.

Exactly. Your job as a director when it comes to comedy (if you didn't write it) is to not fuck it up.

I seriously doubt Deathly Hallows will be split out to two movies, the ministry subplot is pretty easy to cut, and creative trims and restructuring can be made throughout, if anything it'll be the only film they let be longer than Chamber of Secrets, though I think they'll still insist it be less than three hours. Joe Wright would make a hell of a director for the final one, but Cuaron or Newell back would probably do the best job.

and the reason many guys are directing tv than films is that the pool of people who can handle working on a network schedule is pretty damn tiny. a 15 day shooting schedule to deliver two episodes worth of material is pretty damn tough to do, but that's what Jon Cassar and Brad Silbering do consistently and with great style and skill, and they're on location about 60-70% of those 15 days. How many film directors working today could deliver a ninety minute film, thriller or comedy, with only 15 days of shooting? Not very many.

Look to see Howard Stern's PORKY'S get the greenlight shortly. The boundary pushing (for a teen comedy) and rather mean spirited script will be one studios immediate answer to attempt to duplicate SUPERBAD's success. I wish someone could show the difference between a true phenom like PORKY's and a SUPERBAD which is simply this years slice of PIE. Also anyone who thinks HOT FUZZ was strongly directed needs their noggin examined. Wright took a step back from the peppy and likeable SHAUN. FUZZ seemed unfocused and really could have used some of the much maligned studio interference in terms of editing, pacing and mulitple endings. Put it down to the "You are a Genius" syndrome that gets foistered onto many young directors who make a great debut and then turn out flabby second films.

I think the two Barrymore/Sandler movies were also released in winter--in the months generally considered the dead zone for movies.

I can't tell from reading the bunch of threads around here, but was anyone else as entertained by Stardust as I was? It's a shame that a movie this much fun is just being ignored by the market.

Me; I adore Stardust. It's a hell of a film, that I hope the rest of the world embraces more than the US. Hell: I hope the world embraces it enough to generate a 2-disc DC one day, because I sense there's a lot more they did not put in the movie.

Aside from the awesome Stardust, Miami Heat stated; "... which is not to say I never bash." Sir; Derek Jeter could not have made a better catch. There is a reason why I refer to you as MIAMI HEAT, sir. This is due to your propencity to bring the HEAT, on anything that pisses you off. Mark Steven Johnson still has your footprint all over his ass from Daredevil! Whateverthecase; your explanation of the Potter numbers afterwards, seems less harsh than your original statements. Thanks for the clarification.

Dave, I'm not mocking. I'm making a point. And I'll make this point every now and then until you get it in your thick head that focusing on weekend numbers is not only pointless, but poisonous. You're a decent guy so I know that one day you will come to realize this. I know it.

My point of course, is every week the numbers change but the formula remains the same. So there really is no set of changing values or trends to write about. And there's no sense in arguing that each release is its own little anomaly, unlike anything coming before or after it, more like a weather pattern than a box score. It's financial success cannot be scrutinized. But this numbers game that you and Finke perpetuate tries to, whether you know it or not. It also bolster the lie that some good movies may not be that good because they open soft and some wretched movies can be considered successes because they do. When trusted, articulate people like yourself send this message to the studios and producers, less chances are taken and we all lose.

Pauline Kael hit on this three decades ago...

http://www.reel.com/content/reelimages/hollconf2001/kael_0905.html

I know it's sexy to make it into a fight, to turn it into a quasi-religion, I know you gotta pay rent dude, but you have to understand how damaging ANY commentary of this sort is to the art we value.

Well said, Crow.

Much like pop music, I think it's incredibly hard to make a comedy that is really good and not just some funny jokes. And just like a perfect pop song should be no longer than 4 minutes (preferably closer to 3) a comedy shouldn't be any longer than 100 (although there are always exceptions to the rule) because it's incredibly hard to keep up the momentum for much longer - a problem Knocked Up had.

"Wright took a step back from the peppy and likeable SHAUN. FUZZ seemed unfocused and really could have used some of the much maligned studio interference in terms of editing, pacing and mulitple endings. Put it down to the "You are a Genius" syndrome that gets foistered onto many young directors who make a great debut and then turn out flabby second films."

I must respectfully disagree with you there, Sir. I for one thought HF was very tight, intricate and focused (the onscreen trivia track on the DVD makes it clear that nearly everything that happens in the second half of the movie is foreshadowed in the first, for example). And as for the multiple endings problem, that's acceptable in what is meant to be an affectionate parody of the excesses of modern action movies. You could even argue that the movie itself makes that entire point - note Simon Pegg's exasperated 'Pack it in you silly bastard!' line towards the end. I thought the film was massive fun, and i'd love to see these fellows get the big bucks to play with soon.

Crow, it's called the movie "business". Always was, always will be, regardless of what Miami Heat chooses to write on his blog.

"But my comments, on say, Knocked Up, have nothing to do with me thinking it's overrated. The audience is mostly older and like Prada, it wants to be fed."

How old do you think the audience was on Knocked Up? It was pretty young when I saw it, although even Superbad is drawing a crowd that's almost half over-30s, according to Sony.

"how damaging ANY commentary of this sort is to the art we value"

Utter bullshit.

I think you mean well, but your complaining about it all being the same and then trying to shove it all in a convenient little box.

I have to say, like so many things, it sounds like whatever you aren't all that interested in is destructive to art.

And my point is, nothing is inherently destructive to art... except perhaps greenlighting a Rob Cohen movie... and even then, he has had some decent work in there.

What Kael and others refuse to acknowledge is that while there are absolutely problems with the studio system - as there were with the old studio system - there is also a lot of good work being funded by those same "idiots" who have the money to fund the better films because of how much money the "crap" made.

It's such a dehumanizing view of the industry. There are so many things wrong with The System. And Kael wrote this piece, which is nearly a piece of dictation from inside the studio, after her foray inside. Yes, yes, and yes.

But it’s not just that… anymore than any one on this blog is defined by one post in hundreds.

One can discuss race and racists without promoting racism. One can discuss misogyny without promoting the hatred of women. And one can discuss box office without ruining the aesthetic experience.

In the weeks coming up, I will be seeing 3 or 4 mediocre movies a day in desperate pursuit of the one really good one. My work thrives on that good one.

And you know what… the 3 crap ones… they will be made by serious filmmakers who mostly got money outside of the studio system and don’t expect to make a lot of money at the domestic box office. And all those good intention won’t make them any better.

As you must know, after coming here for so long, that when films are not appropriately judged based on box office, they rarely are in here.

"It also bolster(s) the lie that some good movies may not be that good because they open soft and some wretched movies can be considered successes because they do."

How low is your expectation of others? Do you really think that someone who is reading this blog is only thinking box office and has no idea what people think about the aesthetics? Are you policing to make sure that people go to the three box office entries a week and skip everything else so their descent into evil can be complete?

You act as though you want us to be ostriches and put our head in the sand and pretend money doesn't matter. Money does matter in a very expensive medium and to very aesthetically driven artists. And so does the art.

Little Children made less than 1/6 of what Zodiac made? How stupid would someone have to be to make an aesthetic argument based on that?

Transformers will make $100 million more than Ratatouille domestically? How stupid would someone have to be to make an aesthetic argument based on that?

But the thing is, Crow, I’m sure you can handle the discussion… because you are smarter than the people you are protecting from the evil discussion of commerce.

I hate that.

Crow: I don't really think David needs me to defend him. Indeed, after some of the snippy things David has written to me today, I'm tempted to go to end at that long line of folks who want to piss on him. But Crow, the man is right: There is at least as much (if not more) discussion on this blog about aesthetics as there is about economics. Now, I will grant you that some people who post here tend to use box-office numbers as a cudgel in their attempt to prove how great this or that favorite might be. But this is not some salon where we discuss, say, the recurring motif of paranoia and distrust in the cinema of Alan J. Pakula, or the ever-present portents of mortality in the films of John Cassavetes. It might be fun to have such a blog, and maybe one of us should start one some day. But this is a place where we have spirited discussions about art and commerce -- show business, which is business as well as a show. As I tell my students: In the real world of mainstream commercial movies (which is what we talk about 90 percent of the time on this blog), commerce drives art, and technology drives them both.

I know what you're saying. I also know (or at least feel) that in no other time in this industry has commerce so driven the art like it does now. I'd argue it's infecting it ("a summer of only sequels" would have sounded like a joke ten years ago). So how can anyone argue that the weird little balance that "show" has historically had with "business" has not finally been tipped?

Believe it or not I think there is nothing inherently wrong with LOOKING at the numbers -- Klady's agenda-free reports are informative. But adding ANY type of "perspective" to them, politicizing them, which you seems to do freely Dave, is a dangerous thing. It's starting a slippery slope that will bring the more influential but less thoughtfuls to believe it's actually the bottom line. So the only right perspective on The Numbers is, oddly enough, as little perspective as possible.

And still, I know it's the work you do. So I'll excuse the offensive "race charts" for Oscars, Summer box office and your media fetish. But I think there are some huge contradictions in what you represent as a journalist and commentator. One of which,(yes Joe) is the irreconcilable duel-focus on aesthetics AND commerce. You must eventually come to care about just one... or risk being labeled hypocritical.

And yeah blah blah blah I've said this all before.

Crow, you're violating the number one rule on the site: Don't Tell David What To Write. That's been my frustration for years until you finally realize that he's set his path, and as much as we might prefer, as Joe says, for this to be an art-only salon, there are places where that exists, and this is not one of them.

Crow: Look at it this way. Again, as I tell my students, when RKO struck a deal with Orson Welles to make a movie, they weren't thinking, "Gee, here's a guy who can forever change the face of ciema as an art form, and we will proudly underwrite his efforts." No, they thought, "Hot damn! Did you see what he did with that freakin' War of the Worlds radio drama? Let's see if can work a little bit of that magic for us!" I don't think the balance between art and commerce is tipped any more drastically now than it was in the '30s and '40s and '50s. (The mid '60s through the '70s? That period was, I believe, an aberration.) The two forces have now, and always will be, inextricably entwined. I am very happy that Transformers made zillions of dollars, because (a) the movie was fun, but more important (b) maybe that means Paramount will have enough money to put an Oscar campaign behind Christina Ricci for Black Snake Moan. Or maybe there'll be enough loose change in the till to release another indie by another worthy filmmaker. In the end, it all balances out.

Last I checked, Poland's MCN blog is his place to comment on the movie business. That would include anything in and around the art and the commerce of Hollywood. I'm not a big fan of his behind the scenes studio-stuff - who's getting fired and hired, etc. But I'm sure there are those that find it interesting. I'm not paying for this site, it's not my place to tell Dave what to write about. If you don't like his commentary I guess you should find another movie blog, huh?

I'm not saying Dave can't write what he wants. Just that if he writes about commerce with such fervor it can, on some weird level, invalidate the art stuff he writes with equal passion. It's not preaching, it's logical reasoning... a vegetarian who eats a cheeseburger every day to try and figure out how he can stop people from eating meat is not a vegetarian.

OK, now I have no idea what I'm talking about.

("Rob Cohen" ha!)

We have a basic disagreement, Crow.

Numbers with no perspective are, in my eyes, both worthless and the very danger you seem concerned about.

In the end, everyone has an opinion. A very small number of them are informed. Even fewer are educated. I try to be both. And at the very least, I seek to promote thoughtful conversation, even when those in the conversation disagree with me. Joe or you or whomever essentially have equal power to me in the comment sections of this blog… and how people react is really based on their sense of personality and their sense of whose opinions they agree with.

Even if I “get it” more than Joe, that doesn’t mean that a show of hands won’t go in his direction. Democracy is a harsh mistress. And I am happy to create a forum for it. My ego does not require everyone to agree with me… even when I know I am right. I do, however get cranky when I feel I am not being understood.

The illusion that it is "getting worse" has been with us forever. I seriously suggest you read David Puttnam's Movies & Money and see how the business concerns were destroying art in 1908, 1938, 1958, 1978 and all the years in between.

The bigger question of whether the wide variety of options in the media and arts will empower or destroy us is very worthy of discussion. And on the business side, will the niche-ing of the world destroy the financial base that has separated film and television? And if it does, is that a bad thing?

But moaning about box office talk, especially in a room where people are connecting and really thinking about it, is a bore to me… one boogie man in a world of boogie men. I can’t believe that you would really put “discussion of box office” in a Top Five of challenges you see to quality filmmaking in 2007. But maybe I’m wrong.

Crow - I admit I am not a movie vegetarian. I am an omnivore. A happy one.

>>Even if I “get it” more than Joe, that doesn’t mean that a show of hands won’t go in his direction. Democracy is a harsh mistress. And I am happy to create a forum for it.

David, it's too late, and I'm too tired, to really get into how arrogant this comes across. All I ask is this: Next time you wonder why some folks who regularly post on this blog always seem to want to pounce on you for every minor error or misjudgment or miscalculation you make, and you start to go off on one of your "woe is me" snits -- well, remember, when you set yourself up this high, even those of us who might otherwise respect you, even those of us who might be inclined to defend you, can't help wanting to knock you down. And then, when you're down, kick you a few times. To paraphrase Citizen Kane, for anyone else, I'd say this would be a lesson. Only you're going to need more than one lesson. And you're going to get more than one lesson. Because, quite frankly, you're asking for it.

Miami Heat stated; "Transformers will make $100 million more than Ratatouille domestically? How stupid would someone have to be to make an aesthetic argument based on that?" Charlie Murphy is your man. When he recently appeared on the Howard Stern Show. Murphy went on a rant about Norbit costing less than Dreamgirls, but it made more money than Dreamgirls. So to him: NORBIT WAS A BETTER MOVIE THAN DREAMGIRLS! He did not joke at all when he stated as much because he co-wrote the film and obviously took that piece of shit a lot more seriously than most people take their pieces of shit. Nevertheless; the MONEY is a part of the business. Remember this chain of events in order to keep in mind how important box office really is and what it can create given enough time because Nightmare on Elm St. begot The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle trilogy. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle trilogy begot the Austin Powers Franchise. The Austin Powers Franchise begot LORD OF THE RINGS. Which in turn has begot countless New Line productions like Hairspary and the Golden Compass. Box Office makes the will go round. If you want to ignore that simple fact -- go right ahead. However; Dave brings a certain intensity to a subject few do and actually discusses it with some thoughtfulness most do not. If this bothers you... piss off... you freakin git ;)>.

My late father was the same way, kind of. The cheaper the prices, the better he liked the restaurant. He had somehow convinced himself that the food tasted better when it cost less. To distort the old Oscar Wilde saying, he knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Firstly, Joe, that is a sentence that proposes a notion. It does not state a fact. Moreover, the point is that there is a humility in democratic thinking. I didn't propose that people who don't agree with me are idiots. I propose that there are many perspectives... and often, one can be coming from a perspective that a certain core feels is absolutely right while the majority simply disagrees. There is no "right" and "wrong" when there is no objective measure. That is the reality of the world. You need to thicken up the skin, Joe.

Second, you whine about me more than anyone in here... always have. There are a few of you who think this is a competition. It is not. You, in particular, get this daddy thing rolling... and smart and experienced as you are and in spite of the fact that you can offer new insights (which is why I have a blog with wide open commmenting and not just a column), you don't have a position from which to patronize me. Sorry.

I am perfectly aware that people want to knock me down... not just in here. That is the price of having built something. And I am sure Patrick Goldstein and Sharon Waxman and Nikki Finke feel that I am doing that to them. So again, I am fully aware that there are two sides to each coin.

To be honest, I never heard as much caterwauling as when I screamed over and over about the LA Times running a false story about "the internet boycott." I was even accused by someone at the Times of being on Fox's payroll. But they ended up doing the retraction, as they should have. I'm sure that it was more heat from Fox than from me that did it. But someone had to stand up and speak to it... and the trades didn't do it... and no one else in the media did it... in fact, some on the web were trying to use it to their personal advantage. And you know... not a person commented on it when it went up in here. No one cared. But I did the right thing. And I am just fine without the pat on the back... or in your case, the head.

Feel free not to defend me. I am doing just fine, thanks.

"You need to thicken up the skin, Joe."

David: Coming from you, of all people in the blogosphere... Let's just say, thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day. And if you think that sounds condescending, I am not the least bit sorry. Just grin and bear it.

Somebody here sure needs some more McLovin!

Nothing says McLovin like something from the oven... oh, wait, sorry -- that was American Pie.

Just grin and bear it? Joe; has someone been watching a lot of prison films? Hmmmm... All I have to state about this is... I feel like I am watching the BEAT IT video on a BLOG! Ignore that YOU TUBE exist, and the joke make sense.

IOIOIOI: You mean "Thriller," not "Beat It," if you're referencing this sort of You Tube clip (already featured prominently on Keith Olbermann's show) --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMnk7lh9M3o

I'm still confused who this Miami Heat is. :/

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)