May 7, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
The New York Times continues to run terrible pieces. Their losing streak just continues on.
Do you really expect anything else from the NYT?
The Times just doesn’t get Hollywood. It’s alien to them. Even when they send one of their own out here to cover it, they either become corrupted by the system or run home with their tail between their legs.
The editors seem to be passing out PowerPoint outlines and asking writers to bulk ’em up.
At least he didn’t copy the article from someone else and pass it off as his own, right?
It seems the bottom line is looking for the person or formula that’s going to make a hit every time but that’s never going to happen. Other than sequels (and they are no guarentee either)to preivously sucessful films, hasn’t every one of the top all time grossing films been a surprise? How do you replicate the sucess when no one saw it coming?
Plus Hollywood never seems to see the end of a trend till in finally crashes and burns. Of course with the cost of making films today what’s the answer? I guess they feel the safest bet is to just crank out what they think works and go by trial and error.
The only guarantees in life are death and taxes.
We have too many lazy writers out there. How hard is it to research their articles?
I first saw a reference to the NYT piece with this attached:
“Universal Pictures distribution chief Nikki Rocco says the studio is going “back to the drawing board” following the box-office failure of the critically praised Cinderella Man. In an interview with USA Today, Rocco remarked, ‘Good movies are supposed to buck this [downward] trend. You hear how it’s all about the product, but we have an excellent movie that people just aren’t turning out for. [The problem is] something bigger.’ Meanwhile in the New York Times…”
I like how every story is how this “slump” must be a trend. It couldn’t possibly be bad movies or pathetic marketing.
When things go bad, blame the audience.
Good point. It is the paying publics fault that we have to sort thru crap every week. Movies execs. They’ll blame anyone but themselves.
It is always a shock to read how newspapers handle stories in which you have first hand or expert knowledge. It tends to not give you much confidence in the rest of their reporting.
David, your response was right on the nose, not that I’m an expert, but back when the Ovitz/Diller/etc. axis came into power, the whole big beef about most of them was that “they had come from TV” and “didn’t know anything about movies.” Now suddenly, according to this article, they’re the epitome of great film visionaries?
The Ny slimes is a rag. And thats all the news thats fit to print.
Here’s what I think, David. And bear with me.
You do know this business, and it is something you are valiantly passionate about. In fact, passion is the first word many will use to describe you in this town. Typically the next word will be a love or hate assessment, but passionate is alway the first ackowledgement.
But just like that passion can at times cloud your objective view of an Oscar race, it can at times drag you into a place where you resort to back-biting. Like now.
Of course I state all of this as an objective spectator. I know it gets your goat to read someone at the Times misrepresent an industry you know, when you know very well you could have gone in there and cranked out a piece that REALLY nailed down the current climate. But I just don’t know if getting nasty is the way to go here.
I know. Funny coming from me.
But truthfully, while your rebuttal was spot on, it was also too much. And you have the ability to level yourself in thesee situations. I’ve seen it.
My view is that getting bent out of shape is detrimental on a certain level, because it slows the process. An attitude of continued, non-wavering dedication to putting out what you KNOW is the “truth” is the only way to go, the only forward progression there is. And you do that for a large portion of this piece, but that passion that so many are quick to recognize can at times put them off just as quick. At that point, some just don’t take you seriously.
You’re not Tom O’Neil. You don’t have to shoot vitriol, be it in small or large portions. Just relay the truth, free of editorial, and things should begin to change. Right?
I dunno…
By the way, your buddy seems to disagree:
Eisner, Ovitz, Semel, Diller, Katzenberg, Geffen, Guber…riding off into the sunset, their eras drawing to a close. “In the same way that audiences have lost their taste for film, filmmakers have lost their passion,” says David Thomson, author of “The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood.” “It is not surprising that some of the moguls are giving up as well. They are as depressed and tired of the business as the rest of us.” This from a sharp and concise sum-up piece by David Carr in the New York Times…worth reading.
If I based my morality or objectivity on Jeff Wells, I would have little of either.
I can never tell if Poland and Wells like or dislike each other.
Maybe it’s like Rthis:
Wes Mantooth: Deep down in my stomach, with every inch of me, I pure, straight hate you. But god damn it do i respect you.
Ron Burgundy: Thank you. Brother.
Goulet: And have you ever been in the same room as the two of them? It’s scary — the sexual tension is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.
Dave is more Burgundy to me. Ray Pride is Brick.
Oh I think Dave and Jeff are like brothers, personally. Lots of lovin and hatin.
wells is more of the jerk brother who just annoys the hell out of people.
Why would Dave not editorialize his stories here? Isn’t that the purpose of his site and articles? To comment and critique the industry and the players? If you don’t want that then why do you even come here?
I don’t know about you or anyone else but I do come here for Dave’s opinion and stories. I also go to Hollywood Elsewhere for the same thing. Even if Wells is a little crazy and usually off point.
a little crazy?
How about the screen grabs of women’s feet (and his own) he seems to always post since he’s been in New York? And then blankly asking for donations. Why would I donate to someone that routinely posts spoilers in his columns on movies with no warning?
Sorry, I had to vent some Jeff Wells issues…
Hollywood operates as if it has an eating disorder: binge and purge. The unfortunate thing isn’t that its binges don’t leave room for other fare (indies always find a way, that’s their point), it’s that because of extended development by the time the binges begin they’re already over. The bulk arrives after the audience is full.
The modern special FX blockbuster is over. The audience has been doggy-styled to death the past few years. The 2 biggest series ever are over (LOTR and Star Wars), and WOTW and King Kong are modern updates of “classic” material. But the audience is tired. It’s all a blur of interchangeable FX and loud soundtracks. Does ANYBODY think Narnia is going to fly? They’d better get those Christians out in force, cause this thing looks like a log turd headed for a sinking plop.
You can only sucker people to $50 mil openings for so long before they know they’re wasting money — they’ll wait for it on video. And it doesn’t help that ticket prices are TOO HIGH, and people have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials first. It’s not an enjoyable experience.
The funny thing is, and I don’t know if people have really accepted this context, as they were too busy comparing it to The Passion and blabbering about its politics — but 9/11 was really the modern Pulp Fiction. I’m not a fan of either, but it fits the paradigm — independently produced film that scores big and creates a viable market for an otherwise underground genre, in this case the documentary. Whereas Pulp was the breakout of the video generation and its pop culture recycling, 9/11 brought the reality movement to the mainstream. This past generation was raised with video cameras and an overload of news and media manipulation. Anybody with a video camera and a computer can be a filmmaker now, and documentaries don’t require the production values that narrative features do.
Next up will be the internet generation or IndieNet. Film festivals aren’t the place to go for exposure anymore. If you have $100 for a website you can upload whatever you want. It’s just going to take a few years for young serious filmmakers to really master the consumer tools at their disposal. When they do this it’s going to be a fundamentally different scenario.
David knows this, but nobody else really does — Mutiny City News has so far cost exactly $0 to produce.
10 years ago, you had to shoot on film, and you would’ve needed $10k to make a 20 minute short film in 16mm on the cheap — if you brought it to a release print (camera rental, buying film, processing film, renting a Moviola, sound mix, negative cutting, print). “Thumbs Up!” for all its silliness, cost $0 — it’s 15 minutes long, was shot on my DVX-100a in 24p, edited on my Mac, features digital FX including green screen compositing, and has 20 tracks of stereo sound.
You don’t need money anymore. Just an imagination and some determination.
PS- Only critics seem to think David Thomson knows what he’s talking about. Every filmmaker I know thinks he’s incompetent…
And your DVX-100, Mac, and green screen dropped out of the sky?
I’ve owned the DVX-100a for a while. And the Mac and green screen belong to other people from which no charge was required. Prior ownership + freebees = $0 budget.
The asking for donations thing made me close the page and I have not gone back.
Bruce,
You want a bigger laugh? Go to his sons column. He blatantly begs for money. I thought it was a joke first myself but they’re serious there.
Dave promise us you will never resort to that.
Wells’ site is good for a laugh. But can someone tell him no one cares about his lame pictures of the city.
“David knows this, but nobody else really does — Mutiny City News has so far cost exactly $0 to produce.”
I don’t think your surprising anyone who’s ever been to MCN with this fact.
When The Hot Button had no ads and I had no job, we tried selling mercchandise, since I figured it would be giving something to people that they might want, but it was not profitable.
We have never asked for donations and even though it is a non-issue financially around here, we never would.
This is not meant as a comment on other sites, but if you are asking for your readers to support you and you aren’t public radio or TV (where the budgets and content provided are huge), you are not a professional site. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
If Jeff wants to make real money, he should focus on the popularity he has created for his son in the gay community with the many manly action photos.
Zing! That was sweet Dave.
Dave: That is an all-time low for you. Accusing a guy of pimping his son as a gay pin-up. And, while you’re at it, suggesting the kid is gay. I know fathers who would tear your fucking head off if you said that even as a joke about their kids. And no, they’re not all raging homophobes, either. Since you don’t have children of your own, maybe you need this explained to you: You can say anything you want about a guy, but you keep your goddamn mouth closed about his kids. Because if you don’t, you stand a good chance of having your mouth closed for you.
Jett isn’t gay. Never suggested he was.
Jeff keeps putting out photos of his son that have developed a cult of Jett. It has nothing to do with the boy’s sexual preference.
You do love comclusion jumping, Joseph.
David: I repeat — you make a remark like that, even as a joke, to the wrong father, and you’ll get your fucking head handed to you. I can’t believe anyone as smart as you claim to be would fail to notice the crystal-clear implication in your posting.
What kind of man names his son Jett anyway?
Jeffmcm: Someone who has watched “Giant” way too many times, maybe? (Oh, Christ: Now I’m gonna have Wells gunning for my sorry ass as well.)
Jett is a cool name. For a gay man.
Maybe he’s pimping his son out to the so called “Gay Mafia”.
I think I would die if I ever came to MCN and saw Dave begging for “donations”.