MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Closed Set? Tee Hee!

Dave — It’s so funny — in that article you posted on “movie star” Naomi Watts (trust me, she wouldn’t trade it in for anything), the writer says, “Jackson has kept the film set closed during production with a strong expectation for the movie following the success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.”
Oh? Closed? Closed to what? Press from Botswana? Closed…except for the half-hour daily Internet diaries showing every last detail of the production from craft service to scenes being filmed and an AICN writer hanging out for, like, two weeks, and all the rest of the media hoardes. Except for that, sure, it was closed. What a joke.
Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with press on set (obviously), but why try and create this fiction?

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “Closed Set? Tee Hee!”

  1. Terence D says:

    It’s what they do and how they try to create buzz. Works for both parties. Since guys like Jackson get access to fans and doesn’t have to answer much and the sites/journalists get a bone, some buzz and an exclusive story.

  2. Martin says:

    Nothing to do with this discussion at all, but am I the only one that looks at Lemony Snicket as a major misfire on the level of Godzilla? G98 = franchise ‘starter’ with $160 mill. budget, $130 domestic gross, perceived as a loser. Lemony snicket – same thing, except it did even less, only about $120 mill. Both essentially have no chance at a sequel. Yet somehow Snicket is seen as a ‘hit’ by many people. I don’t want to rag on the movie, it might be very good. But it’s box office has to be seen as kind of a disaster.

  3. jeremy says:

    I’ve been wondering the same thing for months. I thought it was getting off light due to the regime change; still, there’s no spinning it as anything but a theatrical disappointment. It’ll be interesting to see how it does on DVD.

  4. Angelus says:

    It got off light because I don’t know who expected it to be be a 200 million movie.

  5. jeffrey boam's doctor says:

    it wasn’t an open set. the entire online diary is what they allow the fans to see. believe me, there are certain things this production does not want to slip out. they have appeared open but in reality this is a tight tight production. the AICN guy was wheeled out to what they wanted and then escorted off. You want some real insider dirt about whats so secret? Just ask the Dr..

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    Doctor: You aren’t going to start telling us how you feed your people, are you?

  7. jeffrey boam's doctor says:

    only if I got demoted to being a script editor like the spamster

  8. jesper says:

    now now dear Dr. spill your beans and elaborate

  9. Don says:

    JB’sD is right….what *are* you seeing in those daily internet diaries? You’re seeing silly little stuff and alot of “fun” type things (interviews with crew, cast, the craziness of shooting such a huge film)…but you aren’t seeing anything that’s going to give anything about the movie away.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    Well, I hear from a reliable source that it’s actually a remake of a Jeff Bridges movie. No kidding. Spam Dooley told me.

  11. PastePotPete says:

    What’s the big secret anyway? We know the plot(I’m not expecting any big changes to the “go to island, find monkey, monkey scary, bring monkey to new york, monkey get mad, monkey die” plot of the original. The only thing that can really be revealed about this production is how Kong looks, and from the productiona artwork that’s “leaked” it looks like a more realistic ape than the other ones. Until there’s some footage of Kong in action there’s nothing to see.

  12. jeffrey boam's doctor says:

    Hey pasty pete, believe me that there are a couple of MAJOR surprises coming to the fans. anyone know how much trouble you get in for breaking confidentiality agreements?

  13. bicycle bob says:

    spam dooley said peter jackson has a beard

  14. Mark says:

    We’re being spammed!

  15. roulette says:

    You may find it interesting to check the sites about casino casino … Thanks!!!

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