MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Disney Horror Show Continues

Desperate HousewivesLostWife Swap…. The Bachelor

Dear God! How are they going to keep the knives sharpened?!?!? Maybe if Ladder 49 tanks… DAMN IT!

Well, at least the next film is… oh no… The Incredibles!

But seriously, folks…

Do some hits really make Eisner a better CEO? Did a bad run for a few years at ABC and for eight months in theatrical make him a horrible CEO?

The problem with all the easy targetting is that when it turns, all you are left with is the rage.

Arguments can certainly be made against Michael Eisner or any industry leader. But I find that it’s best to focus on the long-haul issues and not on the whims of the marketplace.

Or you can just sit around hoping that National Treasure sucks. But even if it does, how do you keep attacking when you realize that this hulking corporation is also still funding Wes Anderson as his indulgences cost more and more each time out?

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “The Disney Horror Show Continues”

  1. Campbell Andrews says:

    I would gladly donate to a fund for Wes’s next. Does buying a ticket to National Treasure suffice?

  2. Campbell Andrews says:

    I would gladly donate to a fund for Wes’s next. Does buying a ticket to National Treasure have the same effect?

  3. bicycle bob says:

    dave, eisner needs to send you a gift basket considering you’re the only same person defending him.

  4. Sandy says:

    Dave, you do have a sane outlook on the entire Disney story. When you do a TV column again, please don’t forget to praise Eisner’s minions at ABC in turning the corner and getting some good ratings for their new shows.

  5. mark says:

    I think David has the only non biased view on this story. I think Roy Disney is paying people off to disparage Eisner who is maybe the best CEO of the past 25 years.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon