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
Poland, dont you know nothing is funnier than
the death of a widow with a LOT of kids? Now
that’s damn funny! That ad reminds me a lot
of those Chocolat ads a few years back. They are
basically selling Depp. If you like Depp as a
whimsical loving dude in films, then that ad is for you.
Now, when it comes to Baby. Let us talk about the
grandest deceiving of the moviegoing public since
Starship Troopers used “Song 2” in their TV ads, but
not in the movie (if anyone gets that reference. I
will personally mail you some twinkees). I just
saw an ad today for Baby; making it out as a friggin
UNDERDOG SPORTS MOVIE! The ad seemed more like
something for a more gritty version of the Mighty
Ducks, then a flick about a girl who decides to
end her life due to a bs plot contrivance.
Why are people not talking about the ending of this
film? DO people like being lied too? I did just
ask that question. Schucks. Of course they love
to be lied, but this flick has some of the most
deceiving ads for any movie I have ever seen.
(SPOILER WARNING ADDED BY DP)
So she kills herself due to adversity kicking her ass
again.
(SPOILER OVER)
Big deal. Plot contrivance of the worst
kind for a movie that has to lose the Best Picture
due to this grand lie.
Friggin ad execs can sell The Sea Inside truthfully.
Yet a movie with a similar story, though fictionalized,
decides to lie to the moviegoing public? Garbage.
That’s Miramax. Sell your movie as if it were the kind people want to see, not as being like it really is. My favorite of their misrepresentations was for Kieslowski’s WHITE, which they promoted as a sexy Julie Delpy film, even though she’s only in about 15 minutes of it and its basically a sad-sack comedy about a frumpy Polish guy (It’s a great film, but still…)
Of course this goes way back. BICYCLE THEVES was promoted as a sexy romance in some ads back in the 40s!
they’ll try anything to sell this movie. no ones buying.
My fave misrepresentation from childhood has to be
AGAINST ALL ODDS. They should that thing like some
friggin action flick. Yet the real movie turned
out to be a friggin cross between North Dallas Forty
and Rachael Ward’s hot ass.
they should have sealed the deal and had nick nolte instead of jeff bridges
Miramax can spin any movie. It is part of their charm.
oh.my.god. I can’t believe L&DB is still going on about this!
“Why are people not talking about the ending of this
film? DO people like being lied too? I did just
ask that question. Schucks. Of course they love
to be lied, but this flick has some of the most
deceiving ads for any movie I have ever seen”
1. Er, people are talking about the ending of the movie. Incase you don’t read any other movie based websites, it’s EVERYWHERE (especially due to annoying right winged morons like yourself who seem to think the movie is preaching gospel to every person who is disabled)
2. Why is it considering lying when the adverts don’t give away the end? It’d be lying if they said it was a feelgood romp. But they’re not. They are merely not giving away the final act and for any movie to do that is honourable because it seems every trailer gives away something from the movies final act. M$B’s ads do not. It’s not lying, it’s good marketing.
3. Some of the most deceiving ads you’ve ever seen, eh? What about all the trailers throughout the years for comedies that well weren’t very funny. or the trailers for every second romantic comedy that is neither romantic nor comedic. Those are much more deceiving than a movie predominantly about boxing advertising itself as, whatd’ya know, a boxing movie.
who’dve thunk it.
Counterpoint to the above: 1) IF it were everywhere,
then the fine folks creating these ads would have
changed course. Maybe sold it in the same vein
as The Sea Inside. Go see that trailer. Baby is
not a boxing movie. It is an ADVERSITY movie.
She chooses to fight hard to become a boxer, but
not as hard to continue living?
2) The TV ad I saw today made it appear to be
Counterpoint to the above: 1) IF it were everywhere,
then the fine folks creating these ads would have
changed course. Maybe sold it in the same vein
as The Sea Inside. Go see that trailer. Baby is
not a boxing movie. It is an ADVERSITY movie.
She chooses to fight hard to become a boxer, but
not as hard to continue living?
2) The TV ad I saw today made it appear to be a
feel good romp. All the main leads were smiling.
They ended it with Maggie’s triumphant march to the
ring. A feel good underdog boxing movie.
3) A comedy trailer has a vast difference than
a flick like this trying to vy for the biggest honour
in the film industry. If you want to call this
flick a classy picture then sell it like a classy
picture. The ads for this film rank right up there
with propaganda of the worst kind. And you did not
like some comedys. Thus making their trailer
inaffective? Sorry. That does not work as an
analogy.
Go go get your shinebox…
Oops.
the camel has some anger issues. relax son
I guess you would characterize Rocky as an adversity movie too then right? Every movie is an adversity movie. Thats the whole point. Without adversity or conflict we wouldn’t have any movies.
I don’t have anger issues! 🙂
I have issues with people who, for whatever their reason (religion, personal similarities) grossly over react to characters in a movie so much as to call it propoganda. It’d be propoganda if Clinty turned to camera and said “All you disabled people should get a friend to kill you! It’s the only noble thing to do!” but he’s not. Infact, the movie ends on the thought that he’s not going to be forgiven (by himself and god) so take of that what you will.
I’m sure there’s plenty of disabled people throughout the world who contemplated suicide. It’s just that in this fictional movie one character helped another do this.
btw, maybe in America they’re selling it as a feelgood romp (i highly doubt that but, whatever) i’m fairly certain most other places are getting ads that show a sombre, drama about people. In fact in one of the ads currently on Australian tv it ends with the bit where Clint is sitting in the change room and Scrap asking “you got a fight I don’t know about?”.
wow. real upbeat.
But, again, even if it is being advertised as a feelgood movie (again, i doubt it) then that’s just savvy marketing.
It’s rare to find a movie that has a development that audience members don’t see coming a mile away.
Thanks a lot for ruining T&H, Poland! I was just heading out to rent it!