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
I really dislike the Bad News Bear. It ranks right
up there with my dislike of Willy Wonka. Leaving
me hoping that this year the remakes out perform their
predecessors. Please let them be better! Please!
But will we get the same ending? The great thing about the film is that the Bears don’t win, much like Rocky. I’m finding it hard to believe that in this day and age that the studio will allow “Take your trophy, and stick it up your ass!” Because parents might take their kids to see it and it wouldn’t want to expose them to such unsportsman-like conduct. I can only hope that Linklater was only willing to do the film if the sentiment is kept intact. Thornton being cast as Matthau is certainly a good sign. But is there any young actress that can pull the weight O’Neal did?
And I agree with you, Dave, it is a great film. Compare it to something like The Mighty Ducks or any other film with kids in it from the last 20 years and you can see how tame we’ve become.
I wonder if they will have to tone down the Tanner character, I recently saw the original again, and I think it’s a great film as well, but I just kept thinking (this was before the anounced the remake) there’s no way they could remake this film today and keep Tanner the same.
It’s the Hollywood let’s have him do it again syndrome — SCHOOL OF ROCK obviously has him pegged as a “works well with kids” director, and while I like ROCK, I don’t quite know why Linklater is beginning this secondary career — his doing a BAD NEWS BEARS remake does not interest me — the first film was quite good, and there is NO reason to make a remake except someone owns a property they wish to exploit till its dry. I mean, make up another little league film that has its own rules and “mythology” that perhaps reminds everybody of BEARS if you must, but a remake? He’s obviously getting paid very well for this, but I always get suspicious of guys who spend 10-15 years talking about how anti the system is who end up doing remakes of the BAD NEWS BEARS — it seems like a check was offered he couldn’t resist.
Richard Linklater filmmaking pattern has always been “one for me, one for you.” School of Rock was for the studios and commercial audiences. Before Sunset was for himself and his art. Now the cycle repeats. It’s how he finances his smaller, more personal, less commercial projects. If that’s what it takes to get his movies made at all, what’s the big deal? With Linklater at the helm, Bears may still not be any good (although it probably has a far better chance than with somebody else), but either way, the big fat check means his next movie can be a sincere artistic effort free of the distraction of the pressure to be commercial.
Filmmakers can be successful batting a “one for me” every time, but it’s a lot tougher road. Many fail entirely, and the ones that succeed have to fight pretty hard for each one. Even a guy with the stature and clout of Clint Eastwood had to fight to get his last two “one for me” movies made. How much chance does a significantly less well-known name like Linklater have? The real miracle in all of this is that he is able to make his non-commercial films *despite* his periodic gifts to the studios.
tanner should have won a best supporting actor award
I pray the it keeps the originals tough themes, hard language, crude humor and doesn’t give into sentimentality.
Have a little faith in the Bad Santa team.
How many “one for them”s did Linklater do in his past? I can’t find one — his only film with a serious budget was NEWTON BOYS, and that wasn’t a commercial film at all. “SCHOOL OF ROCK” was his only “commercial” flick, and that was an original project — cool, good for him. But he is not Soderbergh — He has NOT done multiple “for them’s”, arguably BEARS is his first. Again, commercial cinema is not necessarily bad, but a BEARS remake doesn’t bode well — especially if you’ve seen the trailer!
What do you mean when you state that The Newton Boys wasn’t commercial? I remember being extremely disappointed when I saw it, expecting something better from Linklater. I thought it was too mainstream and pretty damn boring.
What do you mean when you state that The Newton Boys wasn’t commercial? I remember being extremely disappointed when I saw it, expecting something better from Linklater. I thought it was too mainstream and pretty damn boring.
Tanner is truly one of the great characters in cinematic history, and I do mean that. The politically correct beast Hollywood has become won’t keep the character the same, and that’s a shame.
“All we got on this team are a bunch of Jews, spics, niggers, pansies, and a booger eatin’ moron.”
Somebody’s going to get offended just because I typed that.
how did the newton boys have a “serious” budget? whats that even mean? not like it cost 100mill to make. linklater has chops and experience handling large, young casts. it’ll be fine
Why is everybody here so snide with each other? NEWTON cost 20 mill, which was approx 16 mil more than he ever had to work with that point — opinions obviously vary on the film, but to me it was a bore and his worst (still) to date. I’m sure BEARS will be professional, I don’t know if I’ll find it interesting. ROCK was good, but I saw it once and it was enough. The only point I was making was that I don’t think in any way Linklater has a “one for me, one for them” filmography to this point. Hell, my point was that even NEWTON wasn’t one for them; it was not an easy film to sell, despite its momentarily hot cast. I don’t look forward to BEARS as much as I did SUNSET, SUNRISE, CONFUSED, even ROCK. A remake is a remake.
A remake of a classic film though. There is a difference. And he has proven his talent of working with large casts, youngsters, and 70 era stories.
original bad news bears? classic
bad santa? hilarious
billy bob playing a drunk with kids? genuis
linklater directing kids? solid
me? can’t wait for this