The Hot Blog

They made two big mistakes. Betting too heavily on Appatow, and keeping on track with "State of Play" after Brad Pitt left the project.

Duplicity is a forgiveable mis-step, having just watched the movie recently I completely understand the mixed reaction. For me the film half-works. State of Play is a different slope, a political thriller without thrills.

The piece didn't get into their other two huge gambles for next summer: a Robin Hood movie and another Meet the Parents movie.

"Duplicity was NOT an Adult Drama"

THANK you. If I read the phrase "dark dramas such as Duplicity" in one more Universal-bashing piece, I'm going to throw my laptop across the room.

Plus, I know I'm pretty much alone in this, but Duplicity is my favorite studio movie of the year.

Hopscotch, I don't really see how another MEET THE PARENTS sequel is a gamble - unless they had to pay the key participants (Stiller, De Niro, etc) massive coinage to secure their involvement.

As far as the Crowe ROBIN HOOD flick, you're probably right in calling it a gamble, but I don't think anyone should be surprised if this does well. A trim Crowe in an action/period flick of which the topic has widespread name recognition with the public. Hell, even Summit could probably effectively market this film.

That being said, I'm disappointed that the film's original conception - the revisionist take w/ Bale as a more gray Robin Hood and Crowe as a more positively presented Sheriff - didn't make it to the screen. Now THAT would have been a hell of a gamble!

How the hell did Frost/Nixon cost $28 million? It's a movie about two guys -- played by respected actors rather than top-dollar movies stars -- sitting down and talking!

Something seems really wrong with Hollywood if Frost/Nixon costs about the same as District 9.

Che sucks, my sources tell me the following:

De Niro - $20M
Stiller - $20M
Owen Wilson - $15M
Writer (Hamberg)- $4M
Director (Weitz)- $7M

That's $66M right there with Hoffman and Streisand and the rest of the production to go. sure the second was a big hit... nearly 5 years ago. I'm just sayin' if it's a hit, it'll be a pricey one for sure.

Luke, did you actually see FROST/NIXON? It's a lot more than two guys talking. There are dozens of speaking parts (including not-cheap folks like Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt), numerous sets and locations, and a great deal of period detritus that had to be researched and cleared. Given that it's almost impossible to shoot a film with a full union crew for under $25 million these days, I'd say they did a damn fine job of squeezing the nickels.

"not-cheap folks like Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt"

How not-cheap? Have any of them opened a movie lately? At best, $1 million apiece, I'd guess, and that's generous. Not to mention some of the actors had done the stage play before, and needed less rehearsal.

"a great deal of period detritus that had to be researched and cleared." - most of it researched for the original play already, and/or on video, no?

"numerous sets and locations" -- most of them interiors, as I recall. Getting the actual Nixon locations likely cost something, I grant.

Still...nearly $30 million? Might be unfair to compare to District 9 given the different nations they were shot in, but what a contrast on value for money.

Yeah, that's silly. That movie could have been shot for under $5 million just for the costs of the actualy production. I can totally believe that the cast + Ron Howard + Brian Grazer + Peter Morgan all combined added up to $25 million or so.

Here is what I don't get:

You're interested in the 'hard' follow-up questions that didn't get asked-why aren't you out there asking them yourself?

I submit this:

"But Eller's interview has the stench of someone who is used to determining what the news is and asking questions designed to get the expected answers'

I had to read that three times to see if you were actually serious-this is coming from the guy who kisses the asses of anyone who finds the time to come on your D/P 30 segments!!!! :)

You're showing your HotBlog audience (and making money from) your 'D/P 30' interviews, but you don't seem to be asking the hard questions you expect your 'colleagues' to be asking! Are you requesting 'D/P 30' interviews from the same people that Eller is interviewing, and if so, would you actually ask the questions you just put forward?

I'm not even saying that you don't have access to the A list group (because you seem to), but I think it would up your credibility in this post if anyone who reads you actually saw you say these things in front of those people.

Be realistic! You know that in journalism, you can burn your sources, you can be a pushover (as you claim Eller is), or you can tow the line and get by (which usually leads to mediocrity, but welcome to the new world order!).

No joke-My idea for the next 'Super Movie Friends' : you, Sharon, Nikke, Claudia, Peter B., Peter G., Patrick, Kenny, Glenn, Anne, Devon, Harry, Drew, AO, Roger, Manohla, Michael and Jeff sit down in a room (I'm sure I'm missing a few of the heavyweights, but you'll know who they are); no yelling-just an open discussion of the true state of movie journalism! You can get your points out once and for all in front of the group, and everyone else can have a turn.

I can never tell with people like you, "Jack Walsh," whether you are an outside trying to sound like an insider or an insider trying to make excuses for other insiders. Either way, you are correct... you don't much get me or how this all works.

If you were reading carefully, you would get that Universal won't be doing that interview with me (or others who would not roll over to their agenda) because they don't want to be getting into those harder questions. It's not exactly brain surgery to figure this out. It's a placement of sorts.

I don't know where you get these odd ideas about DP/30. They are not a revenue source for me... quite the opposite.... which is not to say that I wouldn't like them to be profitable someday.

As for the content of DP/30 interviews, they are not hard news interviews and don't pretend to be. A large percentage of the interviews stem from me liking the work. I see a film and I want to engage the talent, behind the camera or in front. It's pretty rare that I ask someone to do one of these while no liking the work. Why would I want to? Why would they want to? There have been occasions when I really want to talk to a particular filmmaker and the most recent work is not so great. But as in all of these interviews, it is usually a broader canvas than just one film.

I actually have a couple of studio chiefs lined up for DP/30 in the next couple of months, but even then, I am not very interested in deconstructing this quarter's P&L statement. If I had Shmuger & Linde on tomorrow, my goal would be to discuss what their philosophy of film and of running a studio IS, not what success and failure they have had. Yes, the aggressive discussion about their current struggles would be more news worthy... but DP/30 is not a news event.

Moreover, I decided years and years ago that I didn't want to waste my time and energy fighting to get studios to admit what they can never admit. I am not someone who calls up to get the "no comment." I know when it is coming.

But I can tell you, as a reader of mine and of the other content, what you are reading. Claudia's interview purports to be a hard-hitting, probing interview of co-studio chiefs in trouble. It's a softball. And that's why it got done. Patrick Goldstein, who, of course, tows the company line and claims this is a tough-minded interview, admits as much himself: "At Paramount, when things went south earlier this year, with top execs John Lesher and Brad Weston getting the ax, studio chief Brad Grey stayed above the fray, far from any incoming media fire. 20th Century Fox chieftains Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos wouldn't dream of subjecting themselves to a public grilling when things go bad, as they did last summer." He is, not shockingly, wrong about Paramount, as the bosses scandalously attacked Lesher on the way out via Nikki Finke and others. But much as we disagree, he is stating, as I have, that execs are risk averse... not an insane position for them to take.

Be realistic? Am I really supposed to accept that I either have to be a scumbag or a pushover to be a journalist? Those are really the two options?

I would love to have a large group of writers discuss where things are in the e-journo biz. But as with studio chiefs, most are way to afraid of getting exposed to show up. There is not a person you mentioned - except Wells - who I would not invite to shoot video with me, together with others or on their own. I could give you the reasons why 3 or 4 of them would do it and another dozen would not. But frankly, their drama is not your business. Even though I know it, it's not much my business either.

Finally... every single person on that list knows my points. Hell, Patrick did a virtual rewrite of what I wrote. And you can be sure that this entry was waiting on the desks of the execs at Universal this morning.

I'd like to see a Super Movie Friends with DP, Wells, Friedman, Finke, McWeeny and Goldstein. Maybe throw LexG in there as well. Who wouldn't want to watch that?

Um-maybe I'm late to the party, but you don't make money off the D/P 30's? They are on your website, for which you do sell ads, to studios and other movie industry related groups, right? I think the people who buy advertising from you should hold on to that quote for the next time Oscar season comes around and you try to tell them that you generate way more page views than Finke!

So your argument here seems to boil down to, "I don't ask the questions to the people in charge, because I already know the answers! But, I will slam anybody who might be trying to ask the questions, and gets the answers that I already knew I would get?"

There is a huge line between a scumbag and a pushover in any kind of journalism, but my point was that you don't even seem to be trying the in- between-you're too busy standing on the sidelines judging , and calling everyone else those names!

Jack - The term is monetize. Until you see an ad in a DP/30 spot, you cannot claim that Dave is using them to generate money just because the site en totale has advertising.

As for the roundtable - I've read Dave long enough to know he would actually want to try that, but you're not going to get at least half of that list to show up because it's in their best interest to not have a formal criteria or standard of any kind. He's made that point dozens of times over the years.

As for journos - You state in the first that their are three kinds of entertainment journalists, and then in the follow-up, you crack Dave for not being one of the three. Except previously, you assert he's a pushover because DP/30 are friendly interviews.

Martin,

Immediate monetizing of the D/P 30 segments has nothing to do with it. How can you claim that anything that is new on a website that ends up creating additional page views for said website is not adding overall value to the bottom line?

Lets say an tv established show (i.e. Letterman) has a fixed ad rate based on total number is viewers (~3-4 million per night). If that show ads a new segment (a la D/P 30) that doubles the number of viewers solely because they love that segment, they're going to generate more revenue after the viewership has been measured during sweeps. But, if I understand you correctly, you're arguing that you can't say that the added segment is responsible for that revenue?

As for journalistic standards-if it isn't in the best interest of the people on that list to have any sort of 'formal standards', how can you say that Dave is any different? Like I said-he has the ability to go ahead and try to ask the tough questions that he wants answered, but instead, I'm on this site reading his criticism about the others that don't!

I can go into my work performance review at the end of the year and say "I have a million ideas that will fix this company, but I already know my boss is gonna say no, so I'll just continue to keep them to myself!". Guess what kind of bonus that would get me?

I'm sorry if my criticism is harsh, and honestly, I mean no disrespect to Dave. I'm sure that I rub him the wrong way because I only seem to comment when I am criticizing, which is not fair to him. However, I have also been reading him since the TNT days, and sometimes it just frustrates me that he brings up a lot of good points about a variety of different issues, but I don't see any reason why he can't go after the answers himself, before criticizing others who do (even if they fail).

Sorry I didn't respond more quickly to round 2, Jack.

Not that it's really any of your business, but MCN is bought for awards season because of who we reach, not because of how many we reach. As you may notice, we don't run ad servers that have some random and some targeted ads. Not the model I decided on. This doesn't mean that overall page views don't matter. They do. But we are much more in the business of choosing content that we feel will impact our core audience of industry readers, regardless of the direct cause-and-effect on page views. And we have been very fortunate to be early into this party and establish a beachhead.

The rest of the stuff inspired an overlong piece about how it all fits together. It will be up shortly.

"not-cheap folks like Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt...How not-cheap? Have any of them opened a movie lately? At best, $1 million apiece, I'd guess, and that's generous. Not to mention some of the actors had done the stage play before, and needed less rehearsal."

Even if they were a million combined, it's still a lot more than scale + 10.

"a great deal of period detritus that had to be researched and cleared. - most of it researched for the original play already, and/or on video, no?"

No. The play was done on a bare stage with video monitors showing the action and some occasional photographs and clips. Licensing clips for films is a lot more than for stage. Plus there were all those vintage network posters, signs, props, etc., that had to be either located or remade from scratch.

"numerous sets and locations" -- most of them interiors, as I recall. Getting the actual Nixon locations likely cost something, I grant."

Interiors still have to be built and dressed, even if parts are recycled from previous films.

"Still...nearly $30 million? Might be unfair to compare to District 9 given the different nations they were shot in, but what a contrast on value for money."

Instead of comparing it to a foreign film where everyone worked for scale and the effects were done in-house by the producer's FX shop, why not compare it to, say, SPANGLISH, which cost something like $95 million and was shot largely in one actual house with a very small cast?

"Instead of comparing it to a foreign film where everyone worked for scale and the effects were done in-house by the producer's FX shop..."

well, that's not entirely accurate, reflecting what appears to be a common misconception out there re: D-9, which was produced out of enzed by wingnut and the special effects (on set in camera) stuff was done by workshop, but while digital was originally slated to do the visual effects (cgi) for D-9, big jim rolled into town and commandeered the joint, so digital was (and still is) utterly swamped with 'avatar'.

consequently the most complicated, time consuming and expensive cgi work for D-9 was farmed out to a great little canadian vis effects co. called 'image engine', who created the really rather impressive, entirely cgi 'prawns', which made up the bulk of the computer imagery. weta digital did a bit, rendering the mothership and the dropship. (and blomkamp's vis effects co. 'the embassy' also did a wee bit here and there but i'm not exactly sure which parts) so anyway, while the special effects were achieved mainly 'in house', the bulk of the costly visual effects were not.

"why not compare it to, say, SPANGLISH, which cost something like $95 million"

If the goal is to compare 'silly' with 'utterly lunatic and degenerate', then sure.

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

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: