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
the ny slimes is the most boring read in america. they’ve had a pretty bad run recently.
Thankfully, the NY Times is still vastly superior to the Faux News Channel.
Anyone who says Fox News is biased just doesn’t watch. It is the only station out there giving both side of the problem. Both views. They don’t have an agenda. They let their commentators air their views. Unlike some other stations which only show one side of the equation.
I have watched the Faux News Channel, and it could not possibly be more biased. They don’t even try to hide it.
The LA Times has always had the worst industry coverage, it’s almost as if they’re affraid that if they did have better coverage they would be accused of not being a real newspaper so much as another trade paper. There have been times where Counterpunch letters are more informative then what the reporters working for the paper write.
Despite my dislike of the film and the distaste for the way it was marketed, I must commend Mr. Gibson for willingly forking over money that he didn’t owe to repay his fans and followers on money that was wrongfully payed to a third party. Bravo Mr. Gibson, for that’s exactly what Jesus would have done under the situation.
As for why the story is seemingly muted, I must confess I have seen the story in several web pages and news pages, though not with any major splash. If I had to take a guess, I’d say it’s cause A) Icon doesn’t want Regal Cinemas, the nation’s biggest theatre chain, to blackball them like they did with Dreamworks back in late 1999 and B) they don’t want too much attention on the very quietely re-released PG or PG-13-rated cut of The Passion that will be in theatres sometime this month. Just a theory.
Scott Mendelson
Ok, sorry for misspelling PAID. I’m usually very goode about that here stuff.
Scott Mendelson
The LA Times is the worst. And its even worse that it tries to cover entertainment. There sections are terrible along with their writers.
“The Passion Recut” (official title of this re-release) opens Friday opposite “Robots”. It was Newmarket Films that sued Regal for unpaid film rental on “The Passion of the Christ”. That lawsuit was settled last week — way too late for Regal to book “The Passion Recut”.
Because of that lawsuit Regal did not play “Silver City” last fall or “The Woodsman” in the run-up to the Oscar nominations.