Comments (22)

• yeah, but PUSH deserves distribution and I want to see it. I’ve been hearing great raves about how fantastic the film is (although it’s depressing, too).

  I just hope that whoever gets the rights (Lionsgate or Weinstein Co), PUSH will get nation-wide distribution so I can see it.

  Comment by Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! — February 5, 2009 @ 9:23 am  Reply to this post

• Nikki,
  Hiring high priced lawyers is one thing, actually paying those legal fees is another. Wonder how long Mr Fields and Mr Boies will have to wait before getting paid, if ever.

  I look forward to an update on this post with a comment by John Sloss’s company on what their position was/is (other than trying avoid dealing with TWC at all costs).

  Comment by pissing match — February 5, 2009 @ 9:29 am  Reply to this post

• If you think David Boies won’t get every penny he wants from HW, you obviously don’t know who DB is. Ask Bert Fields. He learned the hard way on the Larry Sanders suit.

  Comment by tf — February 5, 2009 @ 9:37 am  Reply to this post

• I know it’s fun to bash Harvey, but geez, if, like you say, it had already been promised, and they were already hammering out the contract, then he DOES have a case and he should pursue it.

  Comment by jj — February 5, 2009 @ 9:43 am  Reply to this post

• JJ, what you’re saying is true, in most cases. And you are assuming people are negotiating in good faith. Harvey doesn’t negotiate in good faith.

  What people need to understand is, Harvey will say he wants a movie after a successful screening, and he will attempt to scare off other suitors by saying he has a deal. He may even tell a film’s rep that he has agreed to a price. But when it comes down to the details of the negotiation, he acts in bad faith and more often than not, the amount he is willing to pay shrinks along with his other committments. He does this because he knows the sellers of the film lose leverage after the heat of the moment dies down. Once he knows other buyers have disappeared he puts the screws to the sellers and renegs on what he agreed to. It’s not crafty deal making or good business- it’s being an ass. Let’s say you are lucky enough to get a deal done and a suitable contract signed by him, he more often than not won’t adhere to the terms of the contract (release dates and P&A committments, etc). Oh, and good luck collecting the last installment of the MG. The guy is not a pleasure to do business with.

  I am sure the reps at Cinetic found out that Harvey and Lionsgate would agree to similar deals. Who would you choose to be in business with? The company that can trot out Tyler Perry and Oprah to support your film? Or the company that barely meets payroll?

  Nikki, when you’re on the phone with Harvey, is he one of those guys who you have to hear him breathing while you’re talking? Seems like he’d be out of breath all the time.

  Comment by The guy who sold a script to Harvery while running the bar on Melrose in the same location where VILLA is today. — February 5, 2009 @ 10:21 am  Reply to this post

• I can’t see why anyone would sell their film to the Water Closet Weinstein Company. I mean they’re more famous for the film they buy and then sit on, than the films they actually release.

  I have to say that I’m rooting for Lionsgate on this one, at least their odds of getting into theaters increases with them.

  Maybe not getting his way for the first time will make Harvey rethink how he’s running his business.

  Comment by Furious D — February 5, 2009 @ 10:28 am  Reply to this post

• I disagree that the film won’t make a dime! There’s a contagion of fans (like those who read my blog, and others like it) who are anxious to see this film. Plus, it already has somewhat of a built-in audience. The book by Sapphire has quite a wealth of fans who will see the film. Throw in Oprah publicizing it on her show to the tens of millions who watch it, as well as Tyler Perry reaching out to his base, and the Sundance cred, I can’t see how this could fail. Sure it probably won’t rake in massive profits for whoever gets it, but I think there’s a small goldmine there (and possibly critical acclaim and award recognition) for the eventual winner of this fight, especially in the ancillary markets.

  Comment by OBENSON REPORT ON BLACK CINEMA — February 5, 2009 @ 10:52 am  Reply to this post

• How do you know know it’s not going to make a dime? ‘Push’ sounds like a valiant filmmaking effort. Don’t write it off because it doesn’t fit your money-hungry, Hollywood-ized, mediocre blockbuster filmmaking standards, Nikki.

  Comment by Armando — February 5, 2009 @ 10:59 am  Reply to this post

• What’s most offensive is the fact that ten more indie films could probably have been made for the legal fees that Lionsgate and Harvey are about to shell out for just one.

  Comment by indiefilmer — February 5, 2009 @ 11:30 am  Reply to this post

• To the Guy Who Sold Script – Yes, Harvey has “buyers remorse,” to put it kindly, in many instances, but no more so than other distributors who buy and then sit on films. But really, something about this stinks, and it ain’t coming from Harvey this time.

  You ask “who would you choose to be in business with?” So in other words, it’s “seller’s remorse” in this instance.

  Comment by jj — February 5, 2009 @ 12:09 pm  Reply to this post

• Oprah will destroy Weinstein on this one.

  BOW DOWN TO THE AWESOME POWER OF OPRAH!!!

  Comment by Rory L. Aronsky — February 5, 2009 @ 2:23 pm  Reply to this post

• jj, please give an example of even ONE other company that buys and sits forever on films like harvey has done countless times.

  Comment by wtf — February 5, 2009 @ 2:58 pm  Reply to this post

• My friend is the producer of this film and like we all tend to do in Hollywood, we go to our friend’s films and expect to have to do the “oh, it was so interesting…” song and dance. But Push was different…it was one of those rare experiences where you stop looking at it as a writer/filmmaker and get sucked into the experience of the film. I laughed, I cried…sometimes at the same time.

  I really wish you wouldn’t judge films before seeing them. This isn’t just a film for an urban audience – and that’s what makes it so brilliant. As a matter of fact, the less you identify with that subculture, the more the movie will affect you.

  Push is one of those rare gems that have the power to rewrite all of the bad stigma surrounding Hollywood. And to think that just because it’s about black people, white audiences wouldn’t want to see it, is preposterous. After all — have you seen our President lately?

  Comment by writer — February 5, 2009 @ 2:58 pm  Reply to this post

• It is really too bad that this is happening to such a great little film. Bottom line is there was not a signed contract in place with Weinstein, he has no right to the movie. LG has a signed deal. Maybe Harvey is getting a bit of confidence back in wake of his oscar nominations but everyone in acquisitions know that you really don’t have a deal until it is signed. Especially regarding a title that everyone wanted. Its Hollywood, you can’t trust a sales agent, everyone knows that. If it was Harvey in that room I am sure he knows he messed up, if it was his staff, it just goes to show you again, that he has a staff that doesn’t know what they are doing. And who is that anyway, didn’t all his acquisition staff leave?

  Comment by jack — February 5, 2009 @ 3:12 pm  Reply to this post

• To Nikki all haters:

  You don’t know what you’re talking about. “Push” will make a ton of money! It’s quality, well-made and award winning.

  People have supported qiality films like this in the past. Like “Talk To Me” with Don Cheadle It made….

  …Okay, but there was “Hustle And Flow” which got an Oscar nomination and made a lot of….

  …Wait, gimme a minute….

  OPRAH! She will make the film a hit. People do whatever she tells them. She did “Beloved” an $80 million slave movie and it made….

  You people are racists.

  Comment by PushLova — February 5, 2009 @ 6:33 pm  Reply to this post

• I wonder how Ortenberg factors into all of this?

  Comment by Lars — February 5, 2009 @ 7:58 pm  Reply to this post

• jack –
  you don’t know – jack! All these deals are done on verbal commitments and no one know that better than harvey and sloss. they’ve done it countless times. Harvey made Sloss. Sloss made Harvey. When you dig deep, it will prob come out that a 3rd party made Cinetic bow out.

  as for Comment by The guy who sold a script to Harvery while running the bar on Melrose in the same location where VILLA is today. – if you weren’t such a tool and your movie was better, you wouldn’t be so bitter today.

  Comment by pimpilicious — February 5, 2009 @ 11:57 pm  Reply to this post

• push lova – don’t be so sure. oprah also produced Great Debaters, which TWC released, and nobody saw it.

  Comment by jb — February 6, 2009 @ 8:23 am  Reply to this post

• Personally, I think the Weinstein Brothers are THE BIGGEST LOSERS (literally) in this business and I don’t know how they’re still surviving!!!

  Comment by Yaniv — February 6, 2009 @ 10:05 am  Reply to this post

• pimpilicious- I agree with you about the guy being a tool, but I have worked for cinetic, the paperwork get signed in the room, especially at a festival or you can guess what happens the next day…. yep your film belongs to someone else. its acquisitions 101, its how it works at a festival. i am sure if its a doc and no one else wants it a verbal is ok, but not when you have a film in play and everyone wants it. obviously you dont know jack. peace brother.

  Comment by jack — February 6, 2009 @ 11:14 am  Reply to this post

• Harvey and Bob owe me residuals. David Boies, get in f****ing lin. (Even if I do like your politics.)

  Comment by tryragbag — February 6, 2009 @ 9:01 pm  Reply to this post

• jb–

  sar·casm \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\ noun 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

  Okay buddy?

  Comment by pushlova — February 8, 2009 @ 8:03 pm  Reply to this post