Weekend, 22-23 May 1999

NEWS BY THE NUMBERS

10. Wedding Bell Yawns: Greg Kinnear was married this.... (yawn) last....(zzzzzzzz)..oh, sorry....week.

9. Beating A Dead Issue: I've stayed away from the story for more than a month because I didn't think it was important and didn't want to have lawyers calling. However, now I have to wonder aloud why Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman haven't just let the Star's story about a couple being hired to show them how to perform sexually in front of Stanley Kubrick's cameras drop away into oblivion. Not a single person, on-line or in my real life, brought this issue up as conversation based on the Star's story. It was a true "so what?" But there is the attorney for the couple, Bert Fields, railing, "We're not going to stand for it!" No one cared! You are getting more publicity for this tripe by pushing the issue and in a weird way, legitimizing it by overreacting. Make no mistake, the Cruise's case is seemingly airtight. The couple, who were quoted in the article, have sworn that they never did what the article said they did. Fields will have to prove malice aforethought to win a judgement, but the evidence is almost not worth fighting for the Star. And so what? Just let it die.

8. Read With Fava Beans And A Nice Chianti: Dino De Laurentiis nabbed the screen rights to Hannibal, the follow-up novel to Silence of the Lambs. As reported by Variety's Michael Fleming, Dino apparently has all the key players (Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster and Jonathan Demme) in place for the sequel, which will now apparently land at Universal. What makes that interesting is that the film, with the $9 million-plus price tag for the novel, sure eight-figure paydays for Foster, Hopkins and Demme and a moderate production cost will have to cost at least $90 million and more likely about $110 million. The original film only grossed $273 million worldwide, so this is hardly a slam dunk. But it will happen.

7. Ovitz Schvitz: Turns out, after all the screaming, that according to Mike Ovitz (As told to the New York Times), he wanted and offered to team as a manager with his old agency partners at CAA before he started AMG without them. Since then, CAA has banned its clients from working with Ovitz' management company, while strengthening bonds with other managers, like Bernie Brillstein, who does exactly what Ovitz intends to do. Clearly, Ovitz tells the story because it makes him seem much less shark-like and much more human. But just because he's spinning, does that mean that he's not less shark-like and much more human than CAA would have us all believe? Just asking.

6. ifilm Network has set a slate of films to be shown at the Tribeca Film Center. Not normally a big deal. But these films (the first premiere is next Wednesday) will be seen on the Net and at the theater at the same time. Additionally, Tribeca will be projecting the film via digital projector, routed through a live phone line. The films involved are essentially failed low-budget projects and I don't expect many people to be watching on-line, but this is just the beginning. The Phantom Menace will be shown digitally at the end of June at a number of screens and some theater owners expect to have digital projection in full swing within seven years. Baby steps. Baby steps.

5. This round in the war between Jeff Katzenberg and Michael Eisner is over and the outcome has gone to the judge. Freakily enough, it turns out that my feelings about the absurdity of the sideshow put on by Katzenberg's lawyer, rife with animus for Eisner as a result of Eisner's apparent animus for Katzenberg, were echoed in Disney's summation given on Thursday. (I wrote the column before they presented their closing, so cribbing this way was impossible.) The one other thing that struck me particularly funny and went uncommented on in the trades was that all the talk about Eisner's rage about Katzenberg's leaks to the press were quite obviously leaks to the L.A. Times' Claudia Eller. In fact, it was one of the amusements of the era to watch the L.A. Times swing and sway between sides. The Times was forever in Katzenberg's pocket. Stories Katzenberg leaked to them appeared regularly as news before he exited the Mouse House. But then, when Katzenberg didn't give The Times an exclusive on the DreamWorks announcement, suddenly the Katzenberg coverage turned bitter cold. In any case, the closest contact to both sides, Ms. Eller, is not handling much of the trial coverage. Her teammate, James Bates, one of the coolest heads in local entertainment journalism, has.

4. In other spinning news, none other than The New York Times, in the persona of Bernard Weinraub, wrote a piece on Monday that rather surprisingly seemed to feel that The Hollywood Reporter has somehow rehabilitated itself under the two month tenure of Anita Busch to the point of matching and perhaps surpassing Variety as the preeminent Hollywood trade daily. Yeah, right. The funny part for me is that I remember being told by Hollywood Reporter folks six years ago that they were then in front of Variety in the influence business. It's just not true. And I'll tell you why. Though it is true that pretty much everyone in this business gets both trades every day, Variety has the upper hand because of Army Archerd and Michael Fleming. Not because they are the greatest reporters on the planet, but because they get a higher percentage of the phone calls when industry folks want to "break" news. Because, you see, none of this is, as Ms. Busch points out in the Times article, brain surgery. I would say that 90-95 percent of what hits the trades is hitting the trades to meet the purposes of whoever the story is about.

Or as UTA partner Jeremy Zimmer was honest enough to admit to Weinraub, "You don't read the trades for information as much as the spin. The trades are like a bulletin board that people use. People spin. People announce a slate of films that you know won't get made. People announce a director is coming onto a project, when you know there's not even a script ready. Some of it is wishful thinking -- if you're trying to make a client appear hot then you suggest that some director is pursuing him. Information travels so quickly now, people in the information flow generally know what's going on before they read the trades. We say at staff meetings, 'If we have to read it in the trades, we're in trouble.' "

Ms. Busch suggests that The Reporter is scooping the heck out of Variety. If they are, I sure haven't noticed it. Or maybe the stories are just ones I don't care about. It seems that each week, The Reporter is first on about three stories, Variety on about 10 and they tie on the other 85 percent. But again, the real weakness of The Hollywood Reporter and what keeps it in the second slot is the commentary. They have almost none of any weight. Martin Grove, Robert Osborne and George Christy might as well be in U.S.A. Today. (Actually, U.S.A. Today gossip columnist Jeannie Williams "breaks" more news than any of them.) The new short-form, newsy columns are fine. But they don't have a real point of view. It's no coincidence that Michael Fleming is the highest paid trade reporter. He, with Archerd, keeps Variety on top. Anita could do more to make The Reporter push Variety by writing her own daily column than anything she can ever do as an editor.

3. I would link you to the Weinraub article on this ever-lasting feud between the trades, but the New York Times would charge you $2.50 to read Monday's story. However, The New York Observer's Carl Swanson managed to pick up on the feud before his Tuesday deadline. Swanson's Off The Record column makes a great weekly read if you are interested in the machinations of the media. Swanson's report almost balances Weinraub's, putting a premium on Variety's point of view. But all in all, I agree with Swanson's view. Read " Variety Explodes Over The New York Times' Coast Coverage" by clicking here.

2. Weinraub also pushed my hot button with his Friday story on Star Wars. With all due to AICN, reviews of the film by fans are still reviews of films by fans. Extrapolating from that is not journalism. It makes for a "news story" that is about as significant as any amateur's opinion can be. Not valueless, but you know your friends. You know the other movies they like. You know how prone to exaggeration they are. You know what their ulterior motives might be. Weinraub quotes only two industry sources, outside of Fox's Tom Sherak, and both are rival studio execs go unnamed. (Worse, they don't even show up until five paragraphs after the 16-year-old quoted from AICN) Even so, one only questions whether SWEO:TPM can reach the $1.8 billion worldwide gross of Titanic. I don't think it can either. But that has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Being just the second billion-dollar worldwide grosser, hundreds of millions behind Titanic, will not make SWEO:TPM a failure. The other insider questions "adult re-playability" (not teen re-playability as some other writers have opined on) and suggests that the film is "definitely a "PG," "especially in these days of hard edged PG-13 movies." Oooh! What a sin! No "f" words (I believe you get two in a PG-13 film these days) or bare breasts (one per PG-13). Must be a movie just for young kids!

I'm sick of all this extrapolation based on so little. While all this negative spin is brewing, Exhibitors Relations is predicting that LucasFilm will okay an extra 400 screens or so by the 19th because excited exhibitors are spending money (not easy to get them to do that) to upgrade so they can get the film. The "majority" of people out there are predicting $200 million in 12 days or less. In the meantime, what are we doing in this e-journalism game? I'll tell you what. We're so aching for the story that we are "reporting" it before it exists. And because a positive story is no story at all these days, we are relying on negativity to keep up interest. And while I have no problem at all with AICN posting reviews of this film, I worry about the top newspaper in America relying on a dozen or less reviews, posted by people who we can't identify or give background for, to tell the story. When a Times reporter on International Politics reports on what he heard people saying at the bar after we started bombing a country as "the consensus," I'm going back to writing cheap-o movies. At least there will be some honesty about the work. Woe is us.

1. The Screen Actors Guild reported this week that the number of roles for women and minorities have declined for the first time since 1992. Actually, the only time, since the survey was only started in 1992. Blacks, American Indians and Hispanics fell back while, surprisingly, Asian American roles actually increased. On the sexism front, men got 63 percent of all roles while women got, well you do the math. There were 56,700 acting jobs on TV and film in 1998 (up from 55,900 in 1997) and only 19 percent went to minorities.

STAR WARS SPOILER-FREE READERS OF THE DAY: First, from a rational reader, Chris Rodda: "All of this talk about The Phantom Menace being okay, but not great, is a joke. I have not seen the film, but from what those who have seen the film have said, they complain that the film plays to a young audience. REALITY CHECK.....these films are for children. I was five when the first film was released. Many times I have heard Lucas say that these films are myths and fairytales--adventures, for a generation who didn't have them. For that, my generation owes Mr. Lucas a debt of gratitude. Now, as the reviews for this film begin to trickle in we must remember that this film is primarily for this generations' group of youngsters. The rest of us merely have the privilege of looking in and remembering what it was like to be a kid again with a true sense of awe. Give yourself a chance and you may remember what those days were like.

And this from an exhibitor from the Western U.S. who saw Wednesday night's screening in Denver: "Well, after nine hours of driving, five hours of seeing movies, three hours of waiting for movies to begin, two hours of eating, and 1/2 hour of bathroom breaks, I am pleased to announce that I have just returned from the Denver Exhibitor's Screening of Phantom Menace. And since I don't want to bring any spoilers into the mix, I will merely say that it was enjoyable. There was stuff I liked, and there was stuff I hated. There was even stuff that I loved. But I am a bit fearful, however, that people are expecting too much from this movie. Will it live up to the amazing amount of hype, pomp and circumstance? Probably not. Will it redefine the way we think about motion pictures? Probably not. Will seeing it two weeks before the public release date win me powerful friends and beautiful women? Probably not.

But will Episode One be an entertaining film for all summer moviegoers, young and old, thick and thin, hip and geeky? Yes. And before anyone sees the film, I feel compelled to remind them of the words that a very wise Jedi once said to a very uptight young man... "Let go! Trust your feelings!" In other words, please don't get caught up in the hype. Don't see Star Wars because some shmoe in your local newspaper called it "The movie event of the Millennium!" See Star Wars because YOU want to see it. And don't forget...it's ONLY a movie!"


E ME: Bravo. You see, even an opinion that isn't 100 percent positive can be reasonable. I doesn't have to be "it's genius" or "it sucks." It doesn't have to be "perfect" or for "8 year-olds." Both of these ROTDs get the real feeling of the film. Let the Force be with you. And if it's better than you hoped, great. And if it's not, there will be another movie coming to a theater near you any second now.

I'm going to try and focus more on movies than the movie business in the next weeks. I love the summer. And with all the crap, there is a lot of fun to have out there. Time to start having it.