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
that 55 pages could have been said in 2 pages, but then this is what grant money gets spent on (or the justification for it).
Theoretical stuff often doesn’t translate to real business. But it’s better than any sleeping pill on the market. goodnight. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
I think that your appreciation of this paper will depend on where you stand. If you think of movies as products then you can appreciate some of the points raised here. However, if you think of movies as art then you will not appreciate the paper.
The reason why some studio chiefs would appreciate this research paper is because they are businessmen and are interested in products that enhance the bottom line.
As for Lota’s comment, theoretical does translate into practical, it just forms the basis of what the practical is. Theoretical produces the practical while the practical enhances the theoretical. You just don’t see the theoretical because its hidden beneath the practical.
that was more boring than the ending to AI
I don’t appreciate any of the points they raised. Considering I barely got through the first page I guess thats okay.
It is more of a bland theory thing. Nothing new there.
I’ve been waiting for Dave to rant and rave and call the Associated Press all sorts of names for its poll regarding moviegoing habits. But, then again, maybe he’s too busy at the roulette wheels to read stuff like this:
“Three-fourths of Americans say they would just as soon watch a movie at home… While 73 percent said they preferred staying home to watch movies on DVD, videotape or pay-per-view, 22 percent said they would rather see them at a movie theater, according to the poll conducted for The Associated Press and AOL News by Ipsos.”
“From the early 1990s through 2002, box-office grosses climbed steadily as studios perfected their blockbuster marketing machines and cinema chains built new theaters with improved seating, sound systems and other amenities. Ticket sales reached a modern peak of 1.63 billion in 2002 and have fallen since, down to 1.51 billion in 2004.”
There’s a smattering of good news, along with an acknowledgement that “Passion of the Christ” skewed the figures for 2004. Over all, though.. well, read for yourselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=493&e=3&u=/ap/20050617/ap_en_mo/movies_ap_aol_poll
He is at the Cathouse. Did he finally take those poker sites on their word and use them?
“knowing everything and understanding nothing” that’s precisely what Fritz Lang said he felt like answering to the people (especially the students) who annoyed him with questions about his recipes for film-making:
“What you don’t get you’ll never understand it” (it’s a line from Faust).
Viktor: Or, as we say in my hometown of New Orleans — Some people, if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.
Why rant and rave about that article with the poll? Since it has no preceding poll to tell us how attitudes have shifted (if they have), then there’s no way to tell if it’s a trend or more of the same…. Of course, I guess that could be the rant, huh?
I did think that was a good article since it did mention both the potential oddity that was The Passion of the Christ while also mentioning the slowing of DVD sales (or maybe that was another article I read). At any rate, there didn’t seem to be the same sky-is-falling rhetoric as in many other articles/columns on the box office slump.
I dont buy that AP poll a damn bit. Poll results can be distorted anyway the poll givers want them to. That 73% just smells a bit to me. Since, of course, many of us see more movies at home. Due to us having 400 cable/sat channels that are always, at some point show a film. Even if I go to the theatre 52 weeks a year. Surely I see more flicks at home than at a theatre. Polls like this are used all the time for the press to make a point, but these points are usually made off of faulty or obvious logic in these polls. I mean, didnt exit polls tell us some guy named Kerry easily had won the last election?
Insert Joefitz bashing of Kerry/the media/whoever he feels like here.
Exit polls are just that. Just polls. Polls don’t tell a whole story.
You tell’em guy who banged Drusilla and Darla!