I have made a $150 donation to Homeless Healthcare Los Angeles in Judd Apatow’s name. That’s more than the $105 bid that was the last legitimate one on the eBay site.
If $4050 were that easy for me to give away, I would have given that away too.
And now… on with real show business…
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"]
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
David, is there any way you could bump one of the earlier threads back up to the top? Say the Fall Preview one? Or maybe start a new one about something that’ll drown out this din that makes last weekend’s silence seem suddenly so welcome? (I apologize for my presumption in making such a suggestion.)
It’s great that you’re willing to have the first post (second now) on your blog be about Variety raking you over the coals. But I don’t think there’s much flogging left in this dead horse. “Always in motion is the future” said Yoda. Just my opinion, but maybe it’s time to start moving towards it ourselves.
“I have made a $150 donation to Homeless Healthcare Los Angeles in Judd Apatow’s name. That’s more than the $105 bid that was the last legitimate one on the eBay site.”
… and on what basis can you show that the last “legitimate” bid was the $105 one? Take a look at the auction. Whoever bid you up to $4,050 has no negative feedback, i.e., no posted history of welching on auctions. (I’m afraid the same can’t be said about you anymore.) Admittedly, the bidder, “rg_cam,” only has eight auctions on record, but I see no evidence to support the notion that this relatively new eBayer would risk getting permanently booted off the site (and possible civil liability) just for the thrill of committing a childish prank. Besides, if that’s all he wanted to do, why not bid millions of dollars like you? The fact is, a $4,000 bid to a premiere is not the least bit unimaginable in our entertainment-mad culture – especially not if it can be written off as a charitable donation.
Looking over all these threads today, what’s most striking to me is: For someone who on a daily basis lashes out at entertainment journalists who you insist don’t dig hard enough, who miss the real story, who don’t get near what you perceive to be the truth, or who take cheap shortcuts (as you claim on one of the parallel threads about the Variety reporter), you sure don’t like having the same standards applied when, like today, YOU ARE THE NEWS.
By those same standards, I don’t see how my persistent, direct approach with you today (and other times) has been altogether different from what you’ve demanded from fact-finding and journalism throughout your writings on Movie City News, The Hot Button and The Hot Blog. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it couldn’t be more obvious that all you want is to keep your own spin on this story and to bulldoze anyone who sees through it. Like all of your homeboys, you’ve been a little too happy to conveniently dismiss/label me as just a malcontent, a rage-aholic or just a douchebag – and steer attention as far away from the spotlight as possible.
Maybe next time you’re ripping into some reporter for not getting the story quite right, you might want to pause and consider how thick-skinned and persistent someone has to be to get at the truth. You might want to think about the tough questions and published stances reporters have to take at the risk of their good names, personal popularity and even their careers. You also might want to think about how you ideally expect a subject to respond under the heat of the spotlight. Then see if you can ever be honest and admit that, in the reactionary way you played the blame game today, you failed.
But the $150 was a nice touch. I’ll grant you that.
I’ve been the story many times before, Chester. I know the heat. And I know how shortcuts do damage.
I may be tough, but I am not cruel.
And of course, it’s my determination. I have crossed the line a few times. And I usually try to make it up. But I don’t pick on little guys and I don’t kick people when they are down and unlike a certain trade, I give them as much good ink when they deserve it as I do bad ink when I think they deserve it.
And Chet… you have acted like a bratty, Ritalin-needy 6 year old today and in the act, making my embarrassment less by comparison. So thanks for that.
I’m now close to 90% sure that you are Jeffrey Wells… really. There is only one other person I know who is quite as relentlessly rageful and he is in Australia. But maybe you make 3, Chet. Maybe you do.
Wasn’t the top paragraph supposed to be your “Last Comment Before Moving On”?
“I may be tough, but I am not cruel.” All too often that’s a matter of opinion, Dave.
“I don’t kick people when they are down.” I think Jeff Wells and his family may disagree with that.
Overall, great job patting yourself on the back throughout the past day. Nice job as well diverting attention from my questions in the name-calling, Cheney-esque style of your homeboys (“a bratty, Ritalin-needy 6 year old”).
For the record, I’m not embarrassed in the slightest. Remember, I’m not the town fool who bid $3 million for a pair of movie tickets.
Night, Jeff.
G’night, mate.
I just took a look at Hollywood Elsewhere for the first time in at least a year. Same chatty, gossippy, unenlightening commentary from Wells. Some more boring stuff from collaborators. Where are the naked pictures of his son?
chester u really got a huge bug up ur butt about this. can we laugh and chuckle at dave and move on? ur starting to sound like even more of a jerk.
Wells is Chester. I think that theory has been mentioned here before. We got some smartass posters on the Hot Blog.
Chester, nice pic of your boy.
Oh Chester….you make me laugh. You can’t be an “important” person because no one with any kind of duties in life would take this much time chasing someone around their blog. So you must be some kind of misguided AICN denzien whose sole purpose in life is to be FIRST!!!! on every topic.
I can’t help but think your presence is due to DP’s constant barbs at that site….the timing and nature of your postings is too similar. Unless you’re Jeffrey Wells…but that seems too easy.
Then again, a simple google search reveals a Lex/Superman type of relationshio between those 2.
Anyway….you’re not particulary interesting or clever “chester” and I hate internet posters who don’t leave a real email address or name so….buzz off please.
-don
I got money that Chester is one of the “First” posters over on Ain’t it Cool. Who’s in?
It is the highest of comedy that Chester was calling Dave immature. It is tough to comprehend when you sit back and let it all in.
the chester person…dude…you are a complete tool and everyone on this site is sick of hearing your garbage…take it somewhere else please…this is a place for movie lovers to talk about movies, not a place for personal (and highly idiotic) attacks to constantly take place.
Dave, you just plain and simple fucked up trying to be a smart ass and a seen-it-all, know-it-all. Had you not been so cock-sure that you “knew” what real story was, you might have discovered the caveat saying what the auction was for. Forget the fact that so close to the opening of the film you should have deduced the connection.
Your big problem here is that you’re pulling a “Clinton:” trying to apologize while saying it isn’t your fault. The whole spin thing about Universal marketing screwing up and the highest bid was not the $4K one but the $105 makes what “Chester” (the Molester?) is saying seem pretty true – you don’t like the shoe on the other foot.
And if Chester is Jeff Wells, I’ve had my own dealings with him this week so I really hate having to agree with him.
RoyB –
I have dealt with the problem the only way I had to deal with it. It was resolved with little fuss… except by Variety. But even that small fuss was hideous for me… not because Universal made it so, but because I feel terrible about having put myself in this position.
The charity has not suffered. My donation alone is more than they would have gotten from the auction had I not made this stupid mistake. If you want to disagree about that, fine, but there was only one other bidder from $105 and above.
There were a number of mistakes made here and mine are the lions share. But is the only reality suppposed to be black and white?
So the charity is more than whole ($4200 donated) and Universal is not complaining.
It seems the person who is most damaged here is me. And however I feel about it, I have no choice but to eat my shovel full of shit.
So what else do you want from me?
“There were a number of mistakes made here and mine are the lions share. But is the only reality suppposed to be black and white?”
Fascinating, David. Considering how little you’re ever willing to consider someone else’s viewpoint, and considering how quick you are to rush to judgment even when you’re not armed with the facts about something, this sentence is quite revealing.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight for future reference… if it’s you in the hot seat, then there are shades of grey. But if it’s someone that you want to roast who is in the spotlight, then only your perspective is important.
And for the record, you have to be kidding with your whole “I didn’t read the fine print” defense. All of us were sent the same eBay link, and I don’t know one person who didn’t immediately realize that this was an auction for the ticket to the premiere. You do realize that eBay bids are contracts, right? What possible joke did you think there was in bidding $3 million for anything on eBay? I wish they’d held you responsible just like they would with any child who decided to fuck around with their system. Instead of blaming Universal, you should be kissing their ass because they could have hung you out to dry. Easily.
Just remember this incident the next time you decide to crawl up someone else’s ass, David, and maybe you should make some phone calls and act like a “real” journalist. Or you could just continue to be a “blogger” and dodge all responsibility if that’s what makes you happy.
If you guys have so much contempt for Poland, why continue to hang out on his blog?
That’s got nothing to do with what I said, Jeff. David Poland holds himself up as the moral and ethical barometer of every other person writing about film anywhere right now. Time and time again, he has hammered people over what he decides are transgressions of judgment. Now, when he does something very public and very stupid, the way he handles it is by deflecting blame and by trotting out some of the weakest arguments I can imagine. This is a genuine issue, and if David wants to write what David has written in the past, then he’s going to have to come up with some sort of real response. He doesn’t need you to defend him. I’m curious to see why he chose to match the lower bid and not the one genuine $4,000 bid. Because it’s convenient? Because he decided it wasn’t “real” enough? He acts like VARIETY just put this on their front page out of petulence, but I think this is a genuine story, and I’d love to see David address these issues with some sort of sincerity instead of just trying to squirm out of them.
Oh, it’s Drew McWeeny. Now I can disregard you.
I should elaborate: you’ve been waiting for a while for Poland to stumble, and here’s your opportunity for revenge on all the times he’s called you out on your shortcomings.
Elaborate away. Doesn’t change a thing. David is the one who now says that the world is not black and white, which is exactly the opposite of what he says regarding anyone else. Here’s the real question… why are you so invested in sticking up for him? Let him answer the questions, Jeff.
You know, Drew. I have addressed this issue with nothing but sincerity. Part of that sincerity is that I feel like a sucker. I am hardly the only person who thought it was nothing but a stunt. But the majority of this thing is me feeling like I made a stupid, stupid mistake that became unneccessarily public.
It’s not an important story and no one was hurt. So what is the “genuine issue,” Drew… other than something bad happened to me, unintentionally but of my own doing, and now you want to define me by it?
Have you ever apologized for anything you’ve done? Or have you just raged at the injustice of anyone questioning you?
Does this have anything to do with whether Paramount was crossing a line by sending Harry a print of War of the Worlds before all but four outlets? Does it have anything to do with whether a poorly edited story ran in the New York Times?
Have you ever seen me write a word about anyone’s personal business… since, of course, if it wasn’t me, there would have been no story at all since Variety would not have been investigating.
And would you have applauded me for cutting a $4050 check? Would Variety have run a story about how great I was?
Of course not.
And it would not have been particularly appropriate.
I surpassed the last legit bid because I could afford to. I would never expect you or anyone else who got caught up in a dumb situation to cut a $4050 check. And unlike you, I wouldn’t get an erection from beating you up about it.
But clearly, I have not suffered enough for you. So keep kicking and biting and scratching. And I’ll keep apologizng, since it is all I can do.
And by the way…. I’ve NEVER said the world is black and white. Never ever.
You, Drew, have always responded in black and white.
My standards for the NYT are very different than my standards for AICN… different for Newsweek than for People… different for The Hot Blog than The Hot Button than Movie City News.
Looking at the endless shades of gray is quite specifically the work I have been doing on the web for the last eight years. I have never felt the need to compare execs to Nazis (except as jokes) or to review movies being released by a company that employs me to write movies for them or to encourage my readers to download stolen images (I have bought illegal DVDs… and returned them to their studios… and I am happy to report that Canal Street has been cleaned up since I wrote about how ubiquitous the dealers on that street were.)
Of course, I am not perfect. But I have apologized. Have you?
Wait… so now your joke about Nazis holds the moral high ground over someone else’s joke about Nazis?
See what I mean, David? You’re the only one allowed to do anything. If you didn’t get the completely hyperbolic Rothman reference as an extremely pointed joke, then how do you expect your readers to pick up the same sort of hyperbolic joke from you?
And, yes, David… I’ve apologized on my own site many times for many things. If your selective memory doesn’t allow you to acknowledge that, then fine… but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Fair enough… that is the closest I have ever seen you come to saying that your attack on Rothman was a joke.
If I misunderstood your satire for venom, my apologies.
But also please note, I have never taken you to task publicly even for that, as I misunderstood it. And the only times I have ever mentioned it to you are here and in a private exchange that you initiated. I did not take the position that I had a reason, much less a right, to chastize you publicly for your apparently comedy-laced “Open Letter To (Tom Rothman’s Bosses).”
My ultimate point is this, David… you felt like VARIETY went after blood in their article, like they were gleeful over something you say was just an embarrassing mistake.
Yet, time and time again, when you write about other people, you do so without asking them about their perspective on things. Many of the things you still throw up to me as “mistakes” or “transgressions” are simply things that you’ve decided to paint a certain way without even trying to understand my point of view. You hold yourself up as a moral arbiter, but you refuse to acknowledge that there can be more than one point of view on something.
You have a chance here to see that when you become the story, sometimes the whole story isn’t being told, and the parts that are told can be used to paint you in a light that is unfair and deeply skewed. That’s my only point in this. I’m not looking to roast you further… I just wonder if this will make any impression upon you in terms of understand other people any better.
And did I publish this story on AICN to roast you? Did I attack you in print and laugh about your misfortune?
Nope. Which is more than I can say about you and several incidents which were never “news” except that they gave you a chance to grind the AICN axe even further.
Once again, Dave, here we have another perfect example of how you’re either spinning out of control or have lost your moral compass. (I’m assuming that at some point you had one.)
The only reason this has been a story is because YOU MADE IT ONE. If you had just quietly paid for the auction, as you were required to by law, nobody would have had to know or hear about any of this.
But you chose otherwise. Out of some warped sense of righteous indignation not seen since the last time one of the Gabor sisters got a traffic ticket, you made an announcement and decreed it outrageous that you should have to pay for the item on which you so irresponsibly, yet contractually, bid. And so rather than accept and swallow your indisputable legal responsibilities here, you issue the equivalent of a press release on this site and go into spin-control mode, blaming Universal for not blaring in 72-point bold type at the top of the auction’s carefully designed page “HEY, JUST IN CASE YOU’RE AN IDIOT, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS A REAL AUCTION!”
You keep repeating over and over again that no one was hurt. Really? That reminds me of some kid who illegally downloads a movie, then defends the theft on the grounds that he never would have purchased it in a store under any circumstances so there’s no loss to the studio. Again, wow, no moral compass. Not only is Universal out $4,050 here but the whole raison d’etre and direction of this particular marketing tool was left decimated. Sure, it’s safe to assume that Universal can afford the $4,050 more easily than you can, but, again, so what? THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU ANY LESS OF A DEADBEAT BIDDER. If someone goes on the Universal lot and negligently does $4,050 worth of damage to one of the sets, don’t you think the studio has suffered a loss of money, time and effort? Or is it all a wash because, comparatively at least, they’re rolling in the green stuff?
Finally, nice of you to take heroic credit for cleaning up Canal Street. Did you create the Internet too?
A NECESSARY LEGAL REMINDER: Thin-skinned people post here at the risk of rebuttal. Challenging a post on this speech forum does not constitute harassment as defined by law.
Jeez. Do you ever stop? What is wrong with you? I almost feel bad for you that you’re this angry in life.
Jeez, Mark. Do YOU ever stop? What is wrong with you? I almost feel bad for you that you’re this angry in life, which has rendered you incapable of ever evaluating the issues rather than the personalities involved.
Paramount sending a print of War of the Worlds to Harry was only news because they were under so much pressure from so many other outlets worldwide. People send stuff to Harry all the time… not news.
And I have been on the other side of the press in a number of other circumstances. And it is fun when it is good and not fun when it is bad. But there is a difference between kind, reasonable and unfair.
In Miami, when Rene Rodriguez called for my ouster and went after every problem we had while avoiding any positives, he said, “This is the hardest thing I ever had to write.” But you could read the glee in the writing. We’ve all been doing this a long time and we know what pulling a punch or sticking in the shiv is.
That said, that which is reported is different than what I write about things that are published. Everything speeds up when something becomes a public issue. There is no wiggle room because everything becomes “an excuse” or “a reaction.” And a story in a major publication, true or not, insightful or not, defines the truth for a lot of people.
I had a chat the the other night with a very smart industry guy who quoted back a bad fact from a web publication. He is no fool and neither is the guy who wrote that piece. But the information was dead wrong.
In that case, I had long stopped linking to the writer because there was so much bad information in the pieces and I didn’t think he was a big enough target to attack. I was making the problem worse by linking, even if I was also debunking.
But there is no excuse for The New York Times getting stories wrong. There is no excuse for the demise of DreamWorks being blamed on their ability to get on enough screens. That is a disaster. And not only should our readers know that, but the editors at the NYT need every single person who knows that those kinds of obvious mistakes are happening regularly to scream loudly so it stops happening. And the writer of that piece is David Carr, who I really admire as a journo.
I defend people who I don’t like and go after people I do like all the time. I try – and sometimes fail – to seek truth, regardless of how much it hurts… and it often hurts me, longterm, more than anyone. And when I make a mistake, I acknowledge it faster than anyone.
When I report a story, I do contact people and if I make assumptions, I mark them clearly as my assumptions.
We have discussed you and Revolution and reviews… and you don’t seem to think you are doing anything wrong… not on facts, but on principle. I understand your point of view, but I think you are dead wrong.
You are very sensitive about me suggesting there is inside games playing regarding AICN. Okay. But it’s not that I don’t understand how you feel about it. It’s that I also hear the studio’s side. And what they tell you doesn’t match what they tell me. Now, they also may be trying to spin me to… I take that into consideration. Somewhere, in all the stories, there is a blurry gray truth. And that is what I seek. And neither side ever seems to like that blurry gray truth.
There is also a real distinction between media criticism and newsgathering. But this is losing focus.
I have no axe to grind regarding AICN. Frankly, the whole issue bores me already. A few times a year, something like the War of the Worlds thing happens. And that was news, Drew, whether you like it or not. It wasn’t news because Harry saw or reviewed or even liked the movie. I never said that Harry was positive because he saw it earlier than others. I said that it was odd that Paramount made that choice and that unlike most of their product, there was an issue there. Do I know when Harry saw Sahara? Do I care? No.
I have a thin skin when it comes to being publicly chided… I admit it. Not nearly as thin as most journos, but thin still. And I have to live with any of the attacks that come from people who are pleased to see me vulnerable. There is no alternative.
But one of the best notes on this came from someone who was shocked to see that I had been involved with this. The letter was loaded with disappointment in me and there is little I could do, outside of explaining that the story in Variety was a little more harsh than reality. But the letter was an expression of this individuals disappointment, not a “Take that, Mr. High & Mighty” smackdown.
I will remain a judgmental prick because I believe it is a worthy effort. And this experience, sadly, will lead more to my distrust of my colleagues than anything else… outside of walking around with this monkey on my back for a week or so before we all move on to more important things.
There’s debating the issues and there’s just being an absolute jerk. Chester, you are definately on the jerk side.
I am really not doubting right now that Chester/Jeff is really Drew McWeeny. It would not surprise me since he holds so much animosity towards Dave and is generally jealous of him.
There’s debating the issues and there’s just being an absolute jerk. Mark, you are definitely on the jerk side.
I am really not doubting right now that Mark is really John Wayne Bobbitt. It would not surprise me since he holds so much animosity towards me and is generally jealous of me.
Witty is not who you are huh, Jefster? The effort was just flat out lame too. What do you expect when you’re just expanding all your energies in trying to make fun of Dave Poland?
Mark… I’m not angry at David. I brought this up because I think it goes to the heart of how he covers other people. And I signed in using my real name, just as I’ve always done when I’ve made comments here.
Besides, I’m sure David can run an IP search and see that I’m not Chester.
Drew and The C Word are not writing from the same IP address. And Drew has not been one to be masked… at least not for a long while now.
And for the record, I really do see Drew’s point… but we disagree.