MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

P-n-P Blog Factory

I was planning on holding an update on The Pete-n-Pat Blog Show for a while. After all, we

7 Responses to “P-n-P Blog Factory”

  1. marychan says:

    I thought that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is also very profitable for Paramount Vantage…. isn’t it?

  2. SJRubinstein says:

    Bart’s “The Myths of Comic-Con” was akin to reading an essay on somebody’s first experience with a microwave oven written in 2003.

  3. IOIOIOI says:

    That’s good stuff, SJR. Good stuff.

  4. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “No Country for Old Men” was split between Par and Miramax. So was “There Will Be Blood”.

  5. RocketScientist says:

    NCFOM was wisely marketed by Miramax, deliberately and pointedly so, courtesy both the Coens and Scott Rudin, all of whom were very aware of Vantage’s inabilities (and yes, Poland, I know that Coligan’s husband is Rudin’s head of production – doesn’t change the fact neither Rudin nor the Coens know Vantage ain’t worth it shit when it comes to peddling product; Rudin’s got DOUBT set-up nicely at Miramax and they’ll poise it to sweep the Oscars yet again).
    It is still crazy to me that TWBB lost money … it was one of the few movies Vantage didn’t go to great things to screen 100,000 times, thereby effectively reducing their ticket buying audience exponentially.
    And speaking of that, looks like AMERICAN TEEN will be ARCTIC TALE all over again – an overextended, overexposed campaign of hundreds of screenings that’ll be lucky to amount to $5 million when it’s all said and done. I’m surprised Vantage hasn’t been blown away entirely.

  6. RocketScientist says:

    I’ve been reading too many IOIOIOIOIO posts … forgot how to properly utilize English. Corrections below.
    “I know that Coligan’s husband is Rudin’s head of production – doesn’t change the fact both Rudin and the Coens know Vantage ain’t worth it shit when it comes to peddling product …”
    “It is still crazy to me that TWBB lost money … it was one of the few movies Vantage didn’t go to great lengths to screen 100,000 times, thereby effectively reducing their ticket buying audience exponentially.”

  7. David Poland says:

    The problem with Vantage last year was five movies… without No Country. But the biggest thing was that Lesher didn’t like No Country.
    There is no question. Rudin is more comfortable at Miramax. New York based. Hand in hand with 42 West.
    But Vantage actually pulled every f-ing dime there was to pull out of most of the movies they didn’t dump. Do you really think there was more money in Blood, Babel, Into The Wild or even The Kite Runner or A Mighty Heart? I don’t. No one has ever gotten more out of less doc than they got out of An Inconvenient Truth.
    And the issues around TWBB and how they handled the film were mostly not Vantage issues… ’nuff said.
    Except to say, getting TWBB to a nomination is not an indication that “Vantage ain’t worth it shit when it comes to peddling product.” That was nothing close to a lock as a nomination. And they got there.
    I have to admit, I was pleasantly shocked by how well and quickly Megan adapted to marketing. She is equally underqualified to have moved up at Paramount… but much less so than Lesher himself. And we’ll see how it all plays out. She and Guy are very smart and they know how to manage up.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“What Quibi trying to do is get to the next generation of film narrative. The first generation was movies, and they were principally two-hour stories that were designed to be watched in a single sitting in a movie theater [ED: After formats like the nickelodeon]. The next generation of film narrative was television, principally designed to be watched in one-hour chapters in front of a television set. I believe the third generation of film narrative will be a merging of those two ideas, which is to tell two-hour stories in chapters that are seven to ten minutes in length. We are actually doing long-form in bite-size.”
~ Jeffrey Katzenberg

“The important thing is: what makes the audience interested in it? Of course, I don’t take on any roles that don’t interest me, or where I can’t find anything for myself in it. But I don’t like talking about that. If you go into a restaurant and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I were to I speak about the background of my work. My explanations would come into conflict with the reason a movie is made in the first place — for the experience of the audience — and that, I would not want.
~  Christoph Waltz