• Hollywood Elsewhere •

“The Lewis Black of Oscar bloggers” —Patrick Goldstein, “The Big Picture”, L.A. Times

Weekend tracking

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 26, 2007 at 09:44 AM

No question about it -- Ratatouille is going be the #1 film this coming weekend. It's tracking at 82, 36 and 13, which is very high for a family film. Tracking never picks up on the full b.o. gobsmack of animated fare.

Live Free or Die Hard (20th Century Fox, opening tomorrow) will perform impressively this weekend, but I'm betting that opening day will be the biggest of the five. The word-of-mouth will half-help and half-hurt, and so the Sunday-night total will be strong but short of historic. 89, 40 and 16 means $25 to $30 million for the weekend, maybe $40 million for the five days.

Sicko did terrific business in Manhattan last weekend, but it's tracking at 47, 20 and 4. Not bad but not great. "People don't want to see a movie about health care," blah, blah...but what people don't seem to understand is that Sicko makes you melt in the final act. I've never once teared up in my life over the idea of regular people receiving lousy health care, but Sicko changed all that.

A marketing guy contends that "the real problem with Sicko's awareness and interest levels is that Harvey Weinstein "does band-aid spending" on ads and TV buys, and that "money flows through his hands like concrete."

You Kill Me, expanding this weekend, could use a shot of some kind -- 22, 21 and zero.

Evening (Focus Features, opening Friday), a relatiojnship drama aimed at older couples and mature women, doesn't have much of a pulse...27, 22 and 2.

Transformers is going to be (big surprise) huge -- 91, 42 and 13. The head-scratcher is the length -- two hours and 20-something minutes for a picture that has to appeal to kids and young teens? The reason for this is that no one tells Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg anything -- they're surrounded by flunkies, cocooned in their own realm.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix is racking up monster numbers even though it doesn't open until 7.11 -- 91, 50 and 15.

License to Wed (Warner Bros., 73), the Robin Williams comedy that preemed last night at the Arclight, is looking weak -- 68, 24 and 2. And Captivity, the latest torture porn entry, is at 25, 21 and 1.

Comments

Pirates did pretty well in appealing to kids and teens while having a long running time. Wells really hates Spielberg, doesn't he? (Bay too but that's okay).

What do these numbers mean again? I get annoyed at the assumption that we're all supposed to know already, it's inside-baseball gibberish to me.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 11:18 AM

"Not bad but not great. "People don't want to see a movie about health care," blah, blah..."

They probably do, just not in the summer.

"Live Free or Die Hard (20th Century Fox, opening tomorrow) will perform impressively this weekend, but I'm betting that opening day will be the biggest of the five. The word-of-mouth will half-help and half-hurt, and so the Sunday-night total will be strong but short of historic. 89, 40 and 16 means $25 to $30 million for the weekend, maybe $40 million for the five days."

I'm guessing its total will be similar to that of Die Hard 2.

"Transformers is going to be (big surprise) huge -- 91, 42 and 13. The head-scratcher is the length -- two hours and 20-something minutes for a picture that has to appeal to kids and young teens?"

It'll probably do slightly better than The Island, but only as well as TMNT. Michael Bay can only sell a film with stars, and Shia technically isn't a star yet.

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix is racking up monster numbers even though it doesn't open until 7.11 -- 91, 50 and 15."

Though if the last book blows, WB might be in trouble.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 11:19 AM

First Bond was beaten by penguins, now McClane will lose to rats? What the fuck is this world coming to?

Posted by: BurmaShave at June 26, 2007 11:21 AM

First choice picture, second choice, third choice. Judging by the crash and burn of Hostel 2 and the dismal want-to-see for Captivity, any suit who has recently greenlit a new torture porn pic is going to need a new job.

Posted by: Ian Sinclair at June 26, 2007 11:23 AM

You'll be eating those words when Saw 4 (lamentably) makes as much money as Saw 3.

Right now I really want to put Don Murphy (biggest movie of the year!) in a room with DZ (Transformers will gross about $54 million domestic total) and throw the key away.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 11:26 AM

D.Z., Transformers will almost definitely make more during its extended "opening weekend" (which now, you'll note, actually starts on a *Monday* with 8PM "night-before" screenings -- yes, it's a full seven-day "opening weekend") than TMNT did in its entire run. TMNT didn't crack $60 million. For Transformers to perform that "well," it would be considered a bomb. Hell, even disappointing box-office numbers for this movie will be in the $100 million range, and I think it'll make it into the 200's. And I'm not one of those deluded fanboys who, back in April, was like, "Transformers will make $480 million, full stop." I *don't* think a toy line (with some tie-in comics and cartoons) is the same as a 40-years-endured comic book. But I do think something that looks like an Indenpendence Day retread with way better effects has a fighting chance.

Also, the "if the last book blows" is a weird, borderline-meaningless comment. Regardless of what you think of the Potter books (I have mixed feelings), it seems unlikely that after six well-regarded cash machines, the seventh book would suddenly "blow." Maybe you're referring to the possibility of a *disappointing* ending, which *might* hurt the box-office for 6 and 7... but almost definitely not 5, which was always going to take a hefty drop in the second weekend regardless of anything. But I think the combination of Potter's less diehard fans and the diehards who won't want it to end (and therefore will have only the movies to look forward to!) will assure decent money for 6 and especially 7 as films.

Posted by: jesse at June 26, 2007 11:27 AM

Oh, and just a FYI, neither I nor any of my friends (ages 30-44) have the slightest interest in going to see TRANSFORMERS.

Posted by: Ian Sinclair at June 26, 2007 11:28 AM

Oh yeah, and you're wrong, it's not 'first choice, second, third', at least one of those is 'awareness'. But since you slam movies you don't see I can't say I'm surprised you'd be wrong about other things as well.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 11:28 AM

"First Bond was beaten by penguins, now McClane will lose to rats? What the fuck is this world coming to?"

Those are both good signs for movies. If the action films are good they deserve to do well, but automatically grabbing box office gold by ressurecting old icons is a problem for cinema.

Posted by: MAGGA at June 26, 2007 11:28 AM

Personally, I think two hours and twenty minutes of robots fighting under the direction of Michael Bay is not long enough. It needs to be, like, Decalogue length. Fighting Robots, man. It's what the man was born to make.

Posted by: The Winchester at June 26, 2007 11:30 AM

"Oh yeah, and you're wrong, it's not 'first choice, second, third', at least one of those is 'awareness'. But since you slam movies you don't see I can't say I'm surprised you'd be wrong about other things as well."

To be fair, the first time I read one of your posts I thought: there's a snide and ignorant blowhard for you, and I was right on the money.

Posted by: Ian Sinclair at June 26, 2007 11:32 AM

I thoroughly apologize for wasting your time, m'lud. Why don't you tell me what that initial post was so that I can go back and amend it?

Meanwhile, you're one of the worst people I have encountered on this or any other blog, and that's saying quite a bit.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 11:33 AM

now now lets not fight..even though the m'lud part was very funny. back to films..i'll pass on transformers its a saturday cartoon, i'll pass on the rat another cartoon even though its looks funny.. i wish i had kids then i might be into that genre...

Posted by: vansmith at June 26, 2007 11:46 AM

Vansmith, Kids or psychotropic drugs will get you into that genre.

Posted by: The Winchester at June 26, 2007 11:48 AM

jesse: "But I do think something that looks like an Indenpendence Day retread with way better effects has a fighting chance."

ID4 had stars, better-looking vehicles, and Emmerich on a roll after Stargate. Bay's just trying to save what's left of his career after Pearl Harbor and The Island.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 11:51 AM

Regarding Transformers DZ, you've put me in the uncomfortable position of hoping you're right about something...though I think you're very very wrong as usual.

Posted by: cjKennedy at June 26, 2007 11:59 AM

The Winchester speaks the truth. And I hate Michael Bay, but "Giant Robots Fighting" sounds just about his level or narrative or thematic complexity.

And for 2 Hours and 20 minutes, I can dig it.

Posted by: GKLondon at June 26, 2007 12:02 PM

If giant robots fighting meant big office, than we'd be seeing a remake of Robot Jox in a few years.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 12:04 PM

DZ: Actually, ID4 really didn't have "stars" (although it wound up making a star of Will Smith, who had only Bad Boys and a successful TV sitcom to his credit at that point). At the time, Roland Emmerich said he deliberately cast non-stars in the lead roles (Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Smith) so that the audience couldn't assume who would live and who would die, and that uncertainty would help generate suspense. Seriously.

Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 26, 2007 12:05 PM

Joe, that's kind of bullshit. Goldblum was already established action comic relief from JURASSIC PARK and Pullman was a romantic comedy foil in SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE and WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING. Will Smith was certainly a TV star. Plus ID4 only made money from the midnight screenings (right D.Z.?)

Posted by: BurmaShave at June 26, 2007 12:10 PM

I was in the pool guy exchange program a few years ago, and J K Rowling's spread was on my route. We've been close ever since. She let me see the galleys for the last HP book. It ends with an ambiguous cut to black.

Posted by: York "Budd" Durden at June 26, 2007 12:10 PM

M'lud, im going to see oceans 13 i just hope the boys aren't too hip for the room i suspect they will be. that "you kill me" looks cute and snarky i dig dennis farina in anything but its probably sat night dvd material, whats michael mann working on?

Posted by: vansmith at June 26, 2007 12:12 PM

Burma: I am only repeating what Emmerich said at the time. And, actually, he was correct: Any one of these three actors could have been killed off, and while it might have been shocking, it would not have been a surprise.

Also, I rather think Bay is in slightly better shape after Pearl Harbor (worldwide gross: $449,220,945) than Emmerich was after Stargate (worldwide gross: $196,567,262).

Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 26, 2007 12:16 PM

I don't think HP7 will affect the current movie, but DZ is correct insofar as it might affect the movies based on HP6 and 7.

I don't think the last book is going to blow, however. GE/Universal just greenlit a $235 million HP theme park upgrade to Orlando's Islands of Adventure. Though Rowling would probably deny it, I seriously doubt a major corporation is going to commit that much money if it didn't have some idea how the thing turns out. The last book may not be all things to all people, but if it out-and-out sucked, GE would keep its cash.

Posted by: Rich S. at June 26, 2007 12:18 PM

I caught a preview screening of Ratatouille last night, which I thought was freakin' terrific. But as much as I hate to admit it, I saw it in a theater full of kids, and they were tuning out left and right. Squeals started coming from all directions around the halfway point, and you could generally feel the entire theater (NYC's Ziegfeld) getting restless.

I don't see it doing better than Cars, I'm afraid (not as toy-friendly). But it really is wonderful. I can't wait to see it again with an audience that really enjoys it.

Posted by: MarkVH at June 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Joe: "Actually, ID4 really didn't have "stars" (although it wound up making a star of Will Smith, who had only Bad Boys and a successful TV sitcom to his credit at that point)."

You've got to be delusional if you think that Bay made Smith a star. Unless you somehow think people saw Six Degrees of Separation for Stockard Channing...

"I am only repeating what Emmerich said at the time. And, actually, he was correct: Any one of these three actors could have been killed off, and while it might have been shocking, it would not have been a surprise."

Emmerich also thought turning Godzilla into a female attacking France was good writing.

"Also, I rather think Bay is in slightly better shape after Pearl Harbor (worldwide gross: $449,220,945) than Emmerich was after Stargate (worldwide gross: $196,567,262)."

But it made $200 million in actual profit, and that was from international sales.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 12:25 PM

DZ: Bay had nothing to do with ID4. And very, very few people saw Six Degrees of Separation.

Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 26, 2007 12:29 PM

Joe, the thing about DZ is that he's arguing his opinions, which he takes as facts, but since they're still essentially opinions it's impossible to ever prove him wrong - except for when you do, and then he changes the subject or shrugs off what you said with a quip.

Anyway, let's put it this way: none of Pullman/Smith/Goldblum were stars on the level of Tom Cruise or Schwarzenegger in 1996, even as each was at least a familiar face to audiences. I think it can be agreed that Will Smith's ascension was a steady rise up from Fresh Prince to Bad Boys to Independence Day to Men in Black, where he still had second billing after Tommy Lee Jones, but not a sudden rise that could be attributed to any of Michael Bay, Emmerich, or Sonnenfeld.

Also I'm guessing that Emmerich after Stargate was probably in better shape, career-wise, than Bay after Pearl Harbor, because Emmerich's movie was more profitable and less lambasted. After Stargate, Emmerich made Independence Day, his biggest hit; after Pearl Harbor, Bay made a sequel to a movie he had already made.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 12:46 PM

Joe: Sorry, sometimes I can't tell Bay and Emmerich apart for some reason. Anyway, while few people saw SDOS, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=sixdegreesofseparation.htm
notes that it had a huge PTA, which clearly indicates that Smith was a box-office draw long before either director.

jeff: "I think it can be agreed that Will Smith's ascension was a steady rise up from Fresh Prince to Bad Boys to Independence Day to Men in Black, where he still had second billing after Tommy Lee Jones,"

By your logic, people saw The Fugitive for Tommy Lee Jones, too.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 12:51 PM

No, the huge per theater average for Six Degrees indicates that it was an arthouse film based on a pedigreed property that never went into a very wide release. By that logic the high per theater average for You Kill Me means that Ben Kingsley is a huge star.

"By your logic, people saw The Fugitive for Tommy Lee Jones, too."

That does not follow at all from what I said. I no longer have any idea what point you are trying to make.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 12:56 PM

D.Z., yes they did, once word got out about his performance.

Posted by: BurmaShave at June 26, 2007 12:56 PM

"No, the huge per theater average for Six Degrees indicates that it was an arthouse film based on a pedigreed property that never went into a very wide release. By that logic the high per theater average for You Kill Me means that Ben Kingsley is a huge star."

He was a huge star, until he worked with Uwe Boll. Anyway, SDOS made way more than You Kill Me and the average arthouse film in general. (Especially considering it was a smaller market back then.)

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 01:00 PM

D.Z., YOU KILL ME has been out for a week. Sometimes when I read your posts I feel like the Old Man in Robocop 2. BEHAVE YOURSELF!!!!!!!!

Posted by: BurmaShave at June 26, 2007 01:04 PM

DZ: If it had a big PTA -- presumably in larger urban markets -- it's every bit as likely that can be attributed to the source material. At the time, John Guare's acclaimed play was coming off a year-plus run on Broadway, touring company productions, etc. I am sure Will Smith's TV celebrity brought many people to the film who might not otherwise have seen it. But it can be argued he undercut the film by refusing to do something on screen that his character does in the play because it might have hurt his image. (Sorry, I can't be more specific, but it's something of a surprise, and I don't want to be accused of spoiling it for anyone.)

Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 26, 2007 01:05 PM

Burma: Adjusted for inflation, SDOS is still a lot bigger than You Kill Me.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 01:05 PM

Also: Six Degrees most certainly was not an art house flick. It was released by MGM, and opened in Houston and elsewhere in multiplexes.

And BTW: Stockard Channing got the movie's only Oscar nomination.

Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 26, 2007 01:12 PM

That's a bullshit comparison. First of all, You Kill Me has been playing for ONE WEEK. It's box office story has not yet been told. Next, adjusted for inflation Six Degrees grossed what would today be about $10 million. That's a respectable amount for an arthouse movie with NO BIG STARS in it. Smith's appearance in it showed people that he was taking acting seriously and wasn't just going to be a flash in the pan, and I'm sure he added _something_ to the box-office, but he was not yet a star.

Fuck, you're obnoxious.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 01:15 PM

That was to DZ, not Joe Leydon. But Joe, while I'm sure Six Degrees was released to plenty of multiplexes, it was still distributed as an arthouse movie - it never went wider than 200 screens, released in that prestige-December part of the year, and based on an upscale play, and by a studio that was pretty much happy to have anything to release to theaters at that time.

Posted by: jeffmcm at June 26, 2007 01:21 PM

RE: Potter book seven. The money's already been collected, the coffers are filled to capacity, so Rowling could have pulled a Jack Torrence and submitted ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKE JACK A DULL BOY ad nauseum and Scholastic would still be laughing all the way to the bank. Book six was much better received by fans than book five, thus WB can expect an even higher opening weekend when that film opens in 18 months or so. And movie number five opens ten full days before book number seven is released, so it'll have ample opportunity to make it's moolah.

Sweet jesus, by the end of July, won't we all be disgusted by the Potter cultural saturation?

Posted by: Dzayson at June 26, 2007 01:35 PM

I just now realized that PTA, the way you speak of it, doesn't stand for Paul Thomas Anderson.

I was so confused for a while there.

Posted by: The Winchester at June 26, 2007 02:59 PM

i can't wait till Transformers makes a shit-ton of cashola

Posted by: actionman at June 26, 2007 04:22 PM

jeff: "That's a respectable amount for an arthouse movie with NO BIG STARS in it. Smith's appearance in it showed people that he was taking acting seriously and wasn't just going to be a flash in the pan, and I'm sure he added _something_ to the box-office, but he was not yet a star."

By that logic, Clooney wasn't big when he was coming off of ER to do From Dusk Til Dawn and Batman and Robin. And Travolta had nothing to do with Saturday Night Fever's success, because he was still "unknown", in spite of being popular on Welcome Back, Kotter.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 04:32 PM

I can understand being enthusiastic about seeing Transformers Actionman, but why do you care how much it takes in? Do you own stock in Michael Bay or something?

Posted by: cjKennedy at June 26, 2007 04:51 PM

Awww C'mon, this is movie Bay was built to make-it'll be his Citizen Kane I tell ya.

Posted by: Thornman at June 26, 2007 06:43 PM

Awww C'mon, Transformers is the movie Bay was built to make-it'll be his Citizen Kane I tell ya.

Posted by: Thornman at June 26, 2007 06:44 PM

Thornman: Funny you should mention Kane, since the last TF movie was also his last role.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 26, 2007 07:14 PM

I agree with the poster who noted how bored the kids were by Ratatouille. I question whether it'll beat Die Hard this weekend. But more importantly, I don't think it'll even do Cars numbers. This is Pixar's Pocahontas, the movie that reveals that everything they touch does NOT turn to gold.
My kids were bored bored. So was I. Not original enough or sophisticated enough for adults, too chatty not funny enough for kids.
Not a bomb. But not all that, either

Posted by: Berniemoore at June 27, 2007 05:17 AM

I love how threads degrade into people (rightfully) telling DZ how full of shit he is.

Not only does HP7 come out 10 days after the Potter movie opens to big box office it's riddiculous to think that the audience would stay away if the book lets them down. If anything it might affect the future films' box office but even that is doubtful at this point.

I also love his argument that being a TV star (and rap - don't forget rap!) meant that Will Smith would naturally be a movie star. Says, DZ:
"By that logic, Clooney wasn't big when he was coming off of ER to do From Dusk Til Dawn and Batman and Robin. And Travolta had nothing to do with Saturday Night Fever's success, because he was still "unknown", in spite of being popular on Welcome Back, Kotter."

How big a hit was From Dusk Til Dawn? And the money it did make - was that from Clooney or Tarantino? Give me a break.
By YOUR logic "Jade" was a huge success because of how well known David Caruso was. And "She's the One" that really kicked ass at the box office because of Jennifer Aniston, right?

Being a TV star means dick all in this context. If you're talking about Clooney you have to acknowledge that The Peacemaker was mediocre at best, the awesome Out of Sight hardly made any money and MAYBE by the time of O Brother Where Art Thou he was considered the kind of guy who could open a movie.

To sum up: People went to see ID4 because they wanted to see shit blow up. Not because Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman (or even Will Smith and Harry Connick Jr.!) were such huge draws - even added up.

Posted by: DavidF at June 27, 2007 08:40 AM

I would LOVE a Robot Jox remake!

Posted by: Bocephus at June 27, 2007 08:49 AM

Bernie: "I agree with the poster who noted how bored the kids were by Ratatouille. I question whether it'll beat Die Hard this weekend."

A flick about Parisian culinary culture might not win with the younger set now, but they might grow to like it when they get older. After all, Fantastia, The Black Cauldron, and the Fox and the Hound didn't do that well during their original runs.

"This is Pixar's Pocahontas, the movie that reveals that everything they touch does NOT turn to gold. "

I think you mean Hercules, since Pocahontas made money.

David:

"Not only does HP7 come out 10 days after the Potter movie opens to big box office it's riddiculous to think that the audience would stay away if the book lets them down."

If they don't lose interest, because of the book, it might be because of sequel fatigue. You also have to take into account that a lot of fans are probably ordering their books online, and might end up breaking the street date on them.

"I also love his argument that being a TV star (and rap - don't forget rap!)"

Yes, rap is "culturally inferior" to the "white man's music", even though it and rock both have African-American origins. Please. It's the same kind of elitism which led to blues and jazz artists getting blacklisted from stores, and having their music stolen and co-opted by white "artists".

"meant that Will Smith would naturally be a movie star."

He's no worse a choice than Jennifer Garner. But there goes that racist conceit again...

"How big a hit was From Dusk Til Dawn? And the money it did make - was that from Clooney or Tarantino? "

If Tarantino's mug was enough to sell a film, then Reservoir Dogs would have made at least as much cash as Jackie Brown. I'm sure that if Clooney wasn't in it, it'd only do as well as Grindhouse.

"By YOUR logic "Jade" was a huge success because of how well known David Caruso was."

The difference is that Clooney was considered more attractive and charismatic than Caruso.

"And "She's the One" that really kicked ass at the box office because of Jennifer Aniston, right?"

It probably would have done worse without her. But regardless, its weak take was due to the shuffling of Friends stars into numerous movie roles, despite fans only liking them for their tv show. Clooney and Smith were clearly loved beyond their shows, while no one could tell Aniston apart from Cox or Kudrow.

"If you're talking about Clooney you have to acknowledge that The Peacemaker was mediocre at best,"

It was an R-rated action film done on the cheap(at least by Hollywood standards) which made double its money back world-wide. It wasn't huge, but
it did better than Speed 2.

"the awesome Out of Sight hardly made any money"

It made more for the studio than Black Dog.

"To sum up: People went to see ID4 because they wanted to see shit blow up."

So why did the Godzilla remake fail?

Posted by: D.Z. at June 27, 2007 11:39 AM

DZ, man, what are you even smoking?
I said Will Smith was both a TV and rap star and while I said the latter with some irony I think your implication that I'm racist miiiight just be a bit far. Let's see what DZ has to say on the matter:
"Yes, rap is "culturally inferior" to the "white man's music", even though it and rock both have African-American origins. Please. It's the same kind of elitism which led to blues and jazz artists getting blacklisted from stores, and having their music stolen and co-opted by white "artists".

I'm happy to have sent you on this FASCINATING riff!
You're saying that rock AND jazz BOTH have African-American
origins??? I hope I'm not breaching board etiquette when I exclaim, "Shut the fuck up!! I had no idea!!"
I am sure the author of "Parents Don't Understand" and "Wild Wild West" (at least the parts of that Stevie Wonder didn't write) appreciates your support. Clearly my collection of works by Motown artists and, say, Robert johnson are all a front. Anyone who doesn't have The Fresh Prince in his collection is an exploiter of black culture and a racist.
Did I get that right?

Anyway, then I pointed out that not every TV star has been as automatically succesful as Smith and, after pointing out that Jennifer Garner's success exposes the racism inherent both in myself and western culture DZ let us all know that:
"The difference is that Clooney was considered more attractive and charismatic than Caruso."

I just want to speak for Clooney in saying I'm sure he appreciates your support.

You also pointed out that Out of Sight made more money for its studio than Black Dog...I'm not sure which scenario is sadder: That you know Black Dog's BO take off the top of your head or that you looked it up.
Either way, I'm sure Patrick Swayze appreciates your support. (I'd say Meat Loaf does too but then I'd probably have to read another essay about how white rockers have exploited the black man's creation or some such thing...)

Lastly, Godzilla failed because shit blew up but it sucked. In ID4 shit blew up and it was cool and it was fun. ID4 had Bill Pullman delivering one of the great cheese inspiration speeches in movie history and all Godzilla had was a way to take Jean Reno and make him utterly boring - an achievment to be sure, but not one to be proud of.

Maaan....what a dick. (You, DZ, not Jean Reno.)

Posted by: DavidF at June 27, 2007 12:38 PM

David: "I am sure the author of "Parents Don't Understand" and "Wild Wild West" (at least the parts of that Stevie Wonder didn't write) appreciates your support. Clearly my collection of works by Motown artists and, say, Robert johnson are all a front."

That's bullshit. Most of the music coming out of Mowtown was tripe, too. Look at "Please Mr. Postman" and "Rockin' Robbin'", for instance.

"Anyone who doesn't have The Fresh Prince in his collection is an exploiter of black culture and a racist. Did I get that right?"

No, you didn't get it right. I was saying that your antagonism towards hip-hop is the equivalent of the racist whitebread consumer of the past, not
that you actually shared the same values. Although I apologize for confusing you with my loaded phrase "racist conceit", which implies that you are a bigot, when I clearly meant that you're a cultural bigot.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 27, 2007 12:55 PM

Dude - you don't know about my antagonism to hip hop or lack thereof. Firstly because my poke was at Will Smith As Rap Superstar not hip hop per se. That you were able to extrapolate this into a lecture on black music, why I'm a bigot etc. has to do with your own psychological issues.

Secondly, thank you for at least explaining to me what KIND of bigot I am. We on this board are so lucky to have you here to tell us what to like, what is original etc etc. Thus I can sleep easily knowing that if I like some music but not all music (especially made by black people!) I am clearly a bigot of some sort.

Thirdly, there is a long list of things I know and/or think that are unaffected by your opinion. Whiles this extends to virtually anything you can think of (save, perhaps, an atagonism towards GW Bush) you may rest assured that your opinion on the music of Motown is certainly on it.
Not only did I not ask your opinion on Motown, your assertion that that most of it is tripe is not germane to the point you attempted to make earlier about "Black music." Whatever you may think of Motown it was "black" top to bottom. That's why a real hip hopper like Will Smith can sample something by Stevie Wonder, thus giving Stevie some "street cred" as the kids say.

I'd tell you not to even try schooling me or someone else but then, using a non sequitr off an irrelevant point off a tangent you started is kinda your modus operandi, isn't it?

Posted by: DavidF at June 27, 2007 01:10 PM

David: "Dude - you don't know about my antagonism to hip hop or lack thereof. Firstly because my poke was at Will Smith As Rap Superstar not hip hop per se."

But you emphasized the music genre in an attempt to undermine him.

Posted by: D.Z. at June 27, 2007 05:07 PM

D.Z. took a poke at Will Smith. ; )

Posted by: MickTravis at July 1, 2007 08:29 PM