MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Pop Quiz (Testosterone Edition)

If you woke up one morning and found this pen sticking out of your neck, would it be okay because you knew that Rachel McAdams had put it there?

Be Sociable, Share!

51 Responses to “Pop Quiz (Testosterone Edition)”

  1. joefitz84 says:

    Rachel McAdams? Yes.

  2. Sanchez says:

    If this Red Eye is a hit who would have had a better summer than Miss McAdams?
    Especially after last years hit The Notebook.

  3. cullen says:

    I’ve got a feeling that Red Eye is gonna clean up…do around $70-80 million domestic…if it’s a hit, she’s really gonna be on a roll…but why do I still feel that not enough people really “know” who she is?

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    Joe accused me of a spoiler, but I think the detail fo his accusation makes a spoiler out of something that isn’t really a spoiler… unless you’ve already seen the film.

  5. Stella's Boy says:

    I wondered if this was a spoiler, and hoped that it wasn’t.

  6. joefitz84 says:

    Looks like they give a lot away in the commercials even. No surprise in Cillian Murphy being a deranged killer. There has to be something else going on in this movie.

  7. lindenen says:

    “but why do I still feel that not enough people really “know” who she is?”
    That could work to her advantage as more people realize they recognize her from other movies and realize she hasn’t been all over their tv screens dancing on couches or flashing her clit.

  8. David Poland says:

    Did the word “clit” just get used on the blog?

  9. jeffmcm says:

    Dammit, now I know the spoiler. I suppose that it would have been blown by the TV commercials, but this story didn’t help.

  10. lindenen says:

    I’m sorry. Are there naughty words on the blog?

  11. Joe Leydon says:

    Oh, so now you’re censoring criticism of you, Mr. Poland? God, what a hypocrite. You post a spoiler, then delete another posting that calls you on it. If that sort of thing had happened on another site — say, “Ain’t It Cool” — you’d be squealing like a stuck pig (or Ned Beatty in “Deliverance”). Must be great to be asbsolute ruler in your little world.

  12. Chester says:

    Welcome back, Joe! And welcome to the new Hot Blog reality! Guess you didn’t get the memo about how we now have to pucker up and pay at the pump.

  13. bicycle bob says:

    does someone really have to use the word “clit”? u can’t find a better way to express something? i’m sure ladies wanna hear that.

  14. Krazy Eyes says:

    Is it too hard to guess from DPs original post that at some point in RED EYE McAdams is going to ram this pen into Cillian’s neck?

  15. BluStealer says:

    It would not be okay. I value my life and my neck and blood freaks me out.

  16. jeffmcm says:

    Is Dave P going to apologize for his spoiler? Or respond at all?

  17. Joe Leydon says:

    Careful, Jeffmcm: You may wind up joining me on a trip down the memory hole.

  18. Chester says:

    C’mon, Jeff, don’t you realize that it’s not Dave’s fault? After all, the studio made the photo available and didn’t post a clear, large-type warning against revealing spoilers…

  19. David Poland says:

    Drama… that is my considered opinion… I included your accusation, Joe… wasn’t that the point?
    Some of you can be a bunch of whinny f-ing drama queens. Sorry I’m giving you a platform… oooh… I’m so evil!

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Mr. Poland: with that last post, you have officially lost my respect. You’ve been losing it lately, incessantly posting about women you find attractive, posting non-story stories about vague celebrity rumors, here putting up an (admittedly minor) spoiler and then making fun of those who objected to it. It’s your blog…welcome to it.

  21. David Poland says:

    If you don’t see how this droning on and on and on is boring, so be it.
    This week, there have been 13 blog entries, 3 hot button columns, a 20 Weeks of Summer and a piece on how films might be delivered in the future. If you can only obsess on the 3 silliest blog entries, you need to look in your own web mirror. I am willing to take my medicine when I screw up, but that’s never enough for you guys either… you just keep pushing.
    And now, Chet and Joe can explain what a tyrant I am and we’ll all feel right at home.
    I am losing it right now… I am bired to death of this crap and if I were a reader, I would stop coming here. PwrGirl… she is trying to engage in a real discussion. You guys just keep whining to the point when each of you makes cogent points – which you all do often – it’s become the variation on the theme. But most importantly, it’s boring!

  22. Joe Leydon says:

    Drama queen? Now David, is that really the best you can do? Throwing around homophobic insults? How sad. And how am I supposed to respond? With some nasty anti-Semitic crack? Or maybe suggest that queer-baiting ill behooves a middle-aged bachelor who spends a suspicious amount of time prattling about babes he’d like to bang? Sorry, I refuse to sink to your level. (Besides, if I did, my Jewish friends, my gay friends AND my gay Jewish friends would take turns kicking the crap out of me.)
    Maybe you should take a little R&R before Toronto. You’re obviously burnt out.
    As for the rest of us: Well, if anyone wants to start a blog similar to this one, under more enlightened management, please contact me. I’d be happy to take part in a civilized discussion.

  23. PandaBear says:

    Lost Jefster’s respect. How ever will Dave live with himself? Please don’t kill yourself, Dave. Please!!!! I beg you.

  24. Joe Leydon says:

    BTW: Just how does one get “bired” to death?

  25. David Poland says:

    Joe – Throwing that PC bullshit into this is cheap bullshit. You know damned well that “drama queen” isn’t a homophobuc remark… you, ol’ hetero Joe are perfectly capable of being a drama queen… and a diva too!
    And the whole notion of pulling that out. It’s pure “Are you now or have you ever been…” And then you top it by throwing out insinuations?
    Still boring…. and now, offensive too.

  26. David Poland says:

    HA! Typo attack! I am really unenlightened.

  27. Joe Leydon says:

    David, with all due disrespect: You now appear to be doing the blog equivalent of Tom Cruise’s infamous “Today Show” interview. Can you say meltdown?

  28. Lota says:

    Joe, I never thought I’d quote you quoting me:
    “Boy! Boys! Knock it off! = Lota”
    Well I think I’d say Boys! Boys! instead.

  29. Joe Leydon says:

    Lota: Picky, picky, picky.

  30. Lota says:

    Unless it was a different typo Joe and you meant
    “Bob! Boys! Knock it off!”
    Hey, it’s possible. There’s enough malt liquor trav’lin around these parts for just about any typo mishtake.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    Is Dave P. drunk? He’s definitely not acting as reasonable and with as much of his much-touted ‘perspective’ as usual.
    PS to Panda: you’re an asshole.

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    Gosh, Jeff: You’re so butch for a drama queen!

  33. David Poland says:

    No, Joe. He’s not. He’s being boring. And your issues are showing.
    drunk, homophobe, asshole, butch, Tom Cruise meltdown… what is that? Are you 10-year-olds taunting your parents, hoping they’ll get angry?
    This is my home. And for whatever reason, you two think it’s really funny to piss in my punchbowl. Part of it is my fault for inviting you into the house. Perhaps I have shown you too much respect. That really sucks.
    I keep saying the same thing… be as critical as you want about issues. Stop taking or making everything personal.
    If you have a problem with me, say it once, say it twice, then shut up or go back to discussing an actual issue that isn’t me.
    I don’t know JMcM, Joe. But you aren’t a kid. Why do I get the priviledge of getting your very worst second grade behavior?
    And really, do either of you think this is fun for anyone besides you? Would you be interested in reading this? I can’t really avoid being selfish on my own blog. But you can.
    I am saddened and exhausted by this. You have taken an otherwise very good week and turned it into a bad taste in my mouth. You can blame me all you want. But you did what you did aas well… active choices = responsibility.

  34. joefitz84 says:

    He’s being extremely boring but what do you expect from him? I think he gets off on getting a rise out of people.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    It’s too easy to get a rise out of some people.
    But it’s rare to get a rise out of Poland. I was being serious when I said before that David P. was acting not like himself lately. And I don’t think I’m the only one.
    Sorry to ‘bore’ you, David. Next time you post a blog entry about films again, we’ll all be happy. Let’s all take the weekend off.

  36. Joe Leydon says:

    David: I think you’d better get back on your meds. Or get some stronger ones. You really are sounding deranged.

  37. Chester says:

    I wish I could say that I hate to say, “I told you so.” I really wish I could.
    Dave, have you noticed that not a single person over the past week and a half has defended you on the various personal issues themselves? (Well, OK, except for a few shameless yahoos who took pride in how funny they thought your subhuman Holocaust joke was.) Sure, a lot of your homeboys have had a field day (week?) joining you in the many carte-blanche personal attacks you’ve encouraged against people like me, Stella’s Boy and jeffmcm. But absolutely nobody has come to your defense in any substantive way.
    You’re right about one thing, Dave: It’s your home. If you want to continue making a public jackass of yourself in your own home, that is entirely your right and by all means please continue. But as long as the door here is open and the tone set by your downward-spiraling example, as well as by your endless tolerance of the always assaultive postings by scum like joefitz84, Sanchez, Mark, bicycle bob, et al, I think it only rational for the rest of us to assume that it’s OK to piss in your rancid, overflowing little punchbowl.

  38. Lota says:

    Chester, geez give the anger a rest, it’ll take years off your life.
    WHile I would have preferred slapdowns to rude behavior sooner, David never encouraged personal attacks against anyone. He has one of the better movie blogs on the web.

  39. David Poland says:

    As many have said over the years, the definition of insanity is to repeat behavior over and over and over while expecting different results.
    By indulging you, whether you are Jeff Wells or someone else who gets off on negativity and anonymous attempts at power games, “Chester,” you have now made literal what has been clear before… you think you have some moral highground for being an arrogant ass and intend to keep doing it.
    And you leave me with three bad choices… act just as crazy, shut down the blog, or take the advice that you have previously offered and start banning troublemakers. If you were a strong enough individual to admit who you actually are and to take responsibility for your bizarre personal attacks, as Joe Leydon does, I would less inclined to take action. But that it not the case.
    You, like Joe and more sporadically, Jeff McMahon – also writing under his own name – repeat the same themes over and over, regardless of the situation and show an inability to let things go and to focus on the issue instead of taking shots at me.
    So there is a real chance that one of these days, you will be the first person banned on the blog. And I will not be happy to do it. But you are right, continuing to indulge this behavior is a public and personal embarrassment for me. It is boring and it is dissapointing. And while it does ebb at times, it most often feels that you and the few others spend their time just waiting to pounce on the opportunity to attack. If it was entertaining (see: Spam Dooley), I would continue to indulge it. But it’s not.
    What a waste.

  40. Stella's Boy says:

    Dave says: “it most often feels that you and the few others spend their time just waiting to pounce on the opportunity to attack.”
    I think I said something similar to that to one of my many attackers a while ago. I sure hope that if Chester gets banned, the others who deserve it get banned as well. That is only fair. Unless it all depends on who is actually getting attacked.

  41. Krazy Eyes says:

    Joe and Jeff’s comments are fairly level-headed and mild compared to much of the stuff that has been allowed to continue on this blog for nearly a year. Sure there were a few snipes in there, but once again, nothing like what is the norm here. I can’t really see why Dave is singling them out as “attacks” other than they are aimed at him.
    All Jeffmcm did was complain that he thought you posted a spoiler and you accused him of being a drama queen. I haven’t seen RED EYE (nor will I until DVD) but to someone with only “trailer knowledge” of the film it certainly looked like a spoiler to me. Can’t you just take the high road, apologize to those who thought it was spoiler, and maybe even delete the offending posting?
    I do agree with Dave that if it is a spoiler it’s a minor one. Hasn’t anyone seen a Hollywood thriller here before? Of course she’s going to get the drop on Cillian at some point in the film and does it really matter if it’s by monster pen, pushing him out the airplane door, whatever?
    Chester, you on the other hand I can’t defend. You wasted all your goodwill a long time ago.

  42. David Poland says:

    JMac’s slaps I can handle. More often then not, he contributes good stuff. And sometimes we get:
    “Is Dave P. drunk? He’s definitely not acting as reasonable and with as much of his much-touted ‘perspective’ as usual.
    PS to Panda: you’re an asshole.”
    If all he did was to complain about a spoiler, he wouldn’t have been part of the problem.
    And really, my big mistake has been to respond to any of this stuff. I am part of the problem in that regard. But I have two goals in having this blog. One is to stimulate and engage interesting ideas and conversations about film. The second is to have a good time. This is not fun right now. And it is a lot of work for something that is not providing joy.
    Why didn’t I just apologize for the “spoiler?” One, as I responded to Joe’s first “it’s a spoiler” post, it occured to me that the posrt itself and any response made it more of a spoiler than it is. Second, Red Eye is not a spoiler movie. I could tell you every single thing that happens in the movie and you would still enjoy it if you like these kinds of movies and you would still hate it if you don’t. It is a fun ride, but you would have to really be thinking about what I wrote really hard for it to act as a spoiler. Here’s another one… Rachel McAdams takes control! Ooooo!
    I guess the bottom line is that there are a few people who come to every discussion with one eye trying to find fault with me. And a week after I caused a problem myself with a stupid act and got attacked for apologizing, just as I got attacked for making a mistake, I am over it.
    At some point, you realize that you can’t win… and then, you have to decide how to minimize the pain of the loss… because shutting down the blog or banning even one person from it is a real loss for me, thanks to people like you, Krazy Eyes or Lota or many others, some of whom don’t post because of the landmines set by others.
    At least the anonymous Chester has stop posting under multiple fake names while accusing me of playing games.

  43. Stella's Boy says:

    I have felt that way many times before, that it wasn’t fun here because every time you showed up and posted something, an attack from numerous people was right around the corner. They didn’t care what you said or how you said it. They were eagerly waiting to tear you apart, usually taking what you said completely out of context in the process. Then when you’d complain about being intentionally taken out of context, more attacks were unleashed (“Be a man! Stop whining!”). And my big mistake has been the same as Dave’s: responding to it. I am also part of the problem in that regard.

  44. jeffmcm says:

    Dave, I promise that I do not come here looking to find fault with you, unlike some others.
    I was being honest when I asked “is Dave drunk” because you were writing in a way that seemed out of character, undiscliplined, and a little slurry.
    And yes, I called Panda a name.

  45. Chester says:

    Dave, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, you are more than welcome to ban me. Go ahead. Be my guest. Bring it on. Nothing would do more to prove the truth of every single criticism I’ve levied at your embarrassingly thin skin for the past week or so.
    That’s right, we’re only talking about approximately 10 days of barbed comments that have targeted you personally. Yet for many months on end, a number of contributors here petitioned you repeatedly – to absolutely no avail – to control the boundless, harassing, juvenile postings on this blog. It had become nearly impossible for some of us to open our mouths before being assaulted with a slew of personal attacks – usually completely unprovoked, irrelevant, out-of-right-field ones. Ironically, I WAS THE PERSON WHO MONTHS AGO FIRST PROPOSED THE BANNING OF UNRULY PEOPLE HERE. Yet, as a matter of stated policy, you refused to so much as lift a finger. (Well, maybe your middle one…) You declared that this was an open forum and that you would not police it – regardless of how extreme the behavior or the outcry.
    But now that your recent irresponsible public conduct has come under some intensified scrutiny and debate here, you are talking about banning ONLY YOUR CRITICS from the site, beginning with me. Wow, what openly vain hypocracy!
    You have proved yourself to be nothing but a dishonest, vindictive, naked little emperor. Therefore, yeah, you might as well start the excommunication process with me. After all, you said you instituted the punitive registration requirement last week in direct response to your frustrations with my anonymity, so you might as well go ahead and finish the job. (BTW, I’m still waiting for that personal off-site e-mail you said you wanted to write to me, which was your sole stated justification for the out-of-the-blue imposition of registration.)
    For someone who now all of a sudden is asking everyone to stay focused on the issues, you sure seem overly concerned with my identity. What possible difference does it make who I am, other than as a distraction that may take you out of the cross-hairs? Deal with what I’ve said, Dave, not with who I am. Trust me, who I am has nothing whatseover to do with the rising tide of valid criticisms against you. And I am certainly not foolish enough to reveal my identity to a neurotic individual like you, one who has admitted on this blog that he has wasted many hours (days?) in his efforts to expose and seek retribution against me.
    Just remember, Dave, the industry is watching. And, visibly or not, it is making judgments about you, your behavior, and your credibility. Unlike all too many of the regulars here, a lot of people last week (including Variety) showed that they are able to be intelligent, objective, and see right through all of your smug, self-serving, cowardly BS.
    If you make this my last posting, so be it. I’m sure that, despite several emboldened postings about my supposed unpopularity here, many people realize that I’ve contributed a lot to the conversation on this site. And they realize that, contrary to your paranoid-delusional assessment, it has never remotely been my intention to destroy you. Why would I even bother? After all, you are doing such a good job of it all by your lonesome self.

  46. David Poland says:

    Chet… yes, you got me. The world sees what a petty, small, egomaniacal, yadda yadda yadda…
    So does that mean your tantrum is over for another few days?
    It’s funny… I don’t spend my time hanging around with people I consider the many terrible things you think I am. Of course, then again, I don’t attack people with the mask of an assumed names either. I wonder whether you would be brave enough to say anything at all, good or bad, if people knew who you really were?
    Doubt it.

  47. David Poland says:

    P.S. Jeff… I’m fine with you 90% of the time… but “slury” is a lame excuse for throwing out “is XXX drunk?” And I think you know it.
    But as fae as I’m concerned, this issue is over and your slate is clean. Thanks for responding thoughtfully.

  48. Sanchez says:

    Did Dave kill one of Chesters dogs or something? A few Prozacs a day won’t kill ya.

  49. Chester says:

    “I don’t attack people with the mask of an assumed names [sic] either.”
    Dave, why on earth do you continue to make my anonymity an issue?
    Suppose I told you I was Tom Hanks. How would that change anything? The issues would still be the same. My being Tom Hanks has nothing to do with your suggestion (joke or not) that Jeff Wells should consider prostituting his son. My being Tom Hanks has nothing to do with your deadbeat bid on eBay. My being Tom Hanks has nothing to do with your choice to make a sick Holocaust joke. My being Tom Hanks has nothing to do with your decision to censor Joe Leydon’s post. Etc.
    The only outcome of my revealing that I’m Tom Hanks (or Joe Schmo) would be that you could have another tool by which you might try to redirect all of the attention toward me (e.g., “At least I didn’t star in ‘Bonfire of the Vanities'”). And that type of misdirection is precisely what you’ve sweatily endeavored to do while I’ve remained anonymous.
    “I wonder whether you would be brave enough to say anything at all, good or bad, if people knew who you really were?”
    Dave, I’ve seen what your homeboys do to some of the people who reveal their identities here. I have never ambushed you for anything you didn’t personally bring up on this site. Your homeboys do that all the time. They harangue people on these pages just for their political beliefs, which are almost always irrelevant to the discussion. They are known to harass via e-mail. They attack people (e.g., Joe Leydon, Drew McWeeney) based on their employers instead of discussing the issues they raise.
    Trust me, Dave: My identity couldn’t be more irrelevant here. But, at least under these circumstances, the same cannot be said for yours.

  50. Krazy Eyes says:

    Just let it go Dave . . . he’s truly a lost cause. 🙂

  51. PandaBear says:

    Dave, he is beyond a lost cause. He has a hard on for you for some reason. Maybe he hates Rachel McAdams. Maybe he truly believes in a slump. Maybe hes just flat out jealous of you. For whatever reason he continues to make sure hes defined as a jealous jerk.

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