MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Still Slow…

Anyone have anything they want to talk about?

Be Sociable, Share!

26 Responses to “Still Slow…”

  1. Krazy Eyes says:

    Film related: What do you think of the Toronto line-up that was announced today?
    Not Film: What do you think about Pat Robertson’s “hit” announcement?

  2. joefitz84 says:

    Who can’t wait for The Cave????

  3. Krazy Eyes says:

    I think The Descent looks better? When’s that one coming out?

  4. Sanchez says:

    I’d pay money to watch Pat go hunting. Sniper style for this Commie.

  5. Mr. Bloppy says:

    Is it too early to start looking at Brad Grey’s Regime? What pictures has he greenlit? How does Paramount’s next fiscal year look? How are the various labels looking?

  6. gunner says:

    Hey everybody. Long time reader, first time poster :-). I was looking at this article in Newsweek awhile back, and I thought it was kind of interesting. Here’s the web version:
    Kind of an interesting question…but I wonder the folly of trying to guess which movies/movie stars will be remembered in 50 years…when Dave is 90+? The article itself is kind of goofy, I mean does anyone really remember Three “Jesus Fire” Kings NOW, let alone in 50 years?
    As for stars, I would think Tom Hanks has a good shot for men, and Jessica Biel for women…J/K. I actually don’t know, maybe Diane Keaton? Faye Dunaway?

  7. Sanchez says:

    First time, Long time.
    Grey needs a season or two under his belt before we can comment on his regime. He needs his own work.

  8. Wrecktum says:

    Diane Keaton and Faye Dunaway are stars of the 70s. I think Merle Streep qualifies as the will-be-most-remembered star of the 80s.
    As for now? Angelina Jolie. She exhibits something that female stars of the past 25 years rarely have: Sex appeal. Allure. And she’s a damn good actress to boot.

  9. Aladdin Sane says:

    It’s just too bad that Jolie doesn’t pick better roles…

  10. eoguy says:

    I caught a screening of Paradise Now enjoyed it thoroughly. The film benefits from being ballsy enough to tackle a controversial political topic and stick with it instead of veering into a love story or action movie.
    The characters are extremely well-crafted and it’s easy to understand their motivations even while disagreeing with them entirely. I found the settings — even exteriors — to be quite claustrophobic, which kept me close to the characters.
    I hope Warner can figure out a way to market this movie to its fullest and snag the political crowds that don’t necessarily frequent American cinemas.

  11. PetalumaFilms says:

    I decided to give the new shows on IFC a chance tonight. WOW. WOW. WOW are they BAD. Like….not even “hey, they’re trying something new and sorta got it right but failed.” These are just flat. out. STUPID. I wish I could say “watch them just to see how bad they are” but it’s just not worth it.
    I watched the first 8 minutes of “Hopeless Pictures” and it gave me a headache with the boring, lame “inside L.A.” dialogue and horrendous “animation.”
    Greg the Bunny was funny on FOX…..5 years ago! Now it’s trying to be cool. Give me a little Sarah Silverman and I can muddle through. Give me a bunny puppet doing bad Woody Allen for 10 mins and I muddle off to ESPN.
    The worst was that moronic “The Festival.” I won’t even go into how BAD that show is. It’s so NOT FUNNY. Here’s an example. The acronym for the film festival on the show is M.U.F.F. Hardy f-ing har. It, like Hopeless Pictures are trying to be like these “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” inside the industry shows. But…they AREN’T FUNNY. Insight and comedic timing and witty writing are funny. These shows are pointless and stupid.
    This Evan Shapiro guy- the new head of IFC-needs to go ASAP if this is “the direction” he sees the channel going in. It’s so totally obvious he’s trying to go the “adult swim” route with these 10-25 minute shows. But here’s the thing…adult swim is somewhat funny and creative These IFC shows remind me of bad film student comedy. Kind of like the Mutiny City News (hate to harp on that again, but it’s true).
    For the 2 hours wasted on these weak-ass IFC shows, I could have discovered an amazing indie film that never saw the light of day. We could have seen some older foreign film that would’ve inspired the youth of today. Instead we get lame copycat material. Independent FILM Channel my ass.
    In closing….if you’re going to show that Z-Channel doc for 2 weekends straight, learn something from it! Ugh….I’m disgusted.

  12. Bruce says:

    How can someone complain about the IFC channel? You watch it for a night and you realize it is utter crap. What a waste of a good idea. They never play any good or obscure indie films. They waste their time on nonsense and have thrown a really good thing down the drain. It is a waste of a good thing.

  13. bicycle bob says:

    on the bright side u can always catch a viewing on living in oblivion.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    What Has Our Society Come To When March of the Penguins Is The Blockbuster Hit Of The Summer? By Michael Bay:

  15. oldman says:

    For the Pat Robinson wacko’s out there; Please see immediately the doc “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”. I highly recocmend this to everybody.

  16. Eric says:

    About “The Descent”–
    Does anybody know if it’s based on the book of the same name by Jeff Long? I looked a few weeks ago and couldn’t find any information.
    And “The Cave” seems to tread on similar ground. Are these projects all totally independent of one another?

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    The Descent is not based on the book by Jeff Long. I believe that there are, or at least were, plans to turn that book into a movie though.

  18. Eric says:

    Hm. That’s too bad– the book was good, and had more substance than it seems these upcoming movies will.
    I suspect an adaptation won’t happen anytime soon now. The market can bear only so many monsters-in-caves movies.

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    If The Cave does well, I’m sure it will greatly increase the odds of The Descent being turned into a movie.

  20. LesterFreed says:

    Books always have more substance than the movie. That’s a fact, Jack.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    They’re two different art forms, you shouldn’t really compare them directly. The best films are as substantive as the best novels. Seems a little snobby to me.

  22. Krazy Eyes says:

    “. . . Please see immediately the doc “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.”
    I had a lot of problems with this documentary. They had a decent argument for making a good pro-Chavez film and then they ruined it by making it so insanely one-sided and elevating Chavez to near cherub status. These filmmakers make the likes of Michael Moore appear like the king even handedness in contrast.

  23. oldman says:

    It’s been a couple of years since I saw RWNBT so my memory may be a little fuzzy; but your comparison with Moore is off base. The doc makers openly admitted they were there to do a doc on Chavez when the revolution broke out. RWNBT is openly a “this is what we experienced”. I don’t know if you have ever experienced a revolution- I have- but RWNBT captures the paranoia and confusion of “Who’s in charge?”; and, “what side are they on?”
    I agree they went over board with their praise of Chavez. However, his people did lead a bloodless democratic take back of the govt…very impressive.. especially for that part of the world.
    What I liked about RWNBT is the sub story on the power and use of media and telecommunications.
    Considering that Chavez is the first Indian to come to power in what, five hundred years, I don’t find his politics a threat to US, but a thrat to the entrenched Spainish class.

  24. sky_capitan says:

    Viewed as a threat? I’d say so. Look at what former Republication presidential nominee (and friend of George) Pat Robertson said:
    “[Chavez is]a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly”
    “[assassinating Chavez would be] cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop”
    Always comes down to oil, doesn’t it? Venezuela is the 4th largest exporter of oil to the U.S.. Chavez wants to find other markets than the U.S. for Venezuelan oil because he doesn’t like American foreign policy. Since the U.S. needs that oil, uhh, I’m sure it feels like a threat.
    Just accuse him of supporting terrorism, that always works.
    (I’m not a Chavez supporter either… anyone who praises Fidel Castro is obviously a lunatic)

  25. sky_capitan says:

    republicational? republican, I mean
    typos are bad

  26. joefitz84 says:

    Anyone that praises The Beard has a screw loose. Probably many of them. That is lunacy.

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