MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Ask Yourself The Question…

Why do you/they like “The Slump?”
Patrick Goldstein Keeps The “Change Is Coming” Alarms
And Poland Says The Hysteria Has Devolved Into A Big Fat Lie

Be Sociable, Share!

14 Responses to “Ask Yourself The Question…”

  1. Mark Ziegler says:

    It gave the MSM something to write about since they don’t have any ideas.

  2. Hopscotch says:

    Because a lot of people hate Hollywood, and they like hearing that it’s doing badly.
    And the media loves reporting on itself.

  3. Hopscotch says:

    Becase people hate Hollywood, and enjoy hearing that it is doing badly.
    and the media likes reporting on itself

  4. PandaBear says:

    Potter slayed the slump!

  5. Crow T Robot says:

    What you gon

  6. Richard Nash says:

    The slump talk was a product of lazy reporting which is nothing new with the media nowadays. They created it but it came back to back them in the rear. They really should have waited til 2005 was over before proclaiming 2005 dead.

  7. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Good column dave. Well argued. However and this is the point the naysayers attribute their stance to – actual ticket sales are down are they not?. Not revenue $$$. But admins. In 2006 exhibitors can raise tix a buck across the board but it will also be down again. There is no actual slump but there is an ever decreasing slide towards alternative viewing discretion for the consumer. Bring on the 3D renaissance I say – last hope for theatrical. As long as Rober (anaglyph) Rodriguez stays away.
    And some give Crow T Robot his own podcast please.

  8. Blackcloud says:

    LOL, Crow, that is hilarious. You mock the song, and the slump idea, all at once. Well bowled!

  9. Lota says:

    Personally, I like Dave C’s “Piss on you” R Kelly remix the best, but that was pretty good Robot.

  10. Josh says:

    R Kelly has been sent up on two great Comedy Central shows now.

  11. Blackcloud says:

    When I saw Goldstein’s column on the LAT website, my first thought was, “I know what today’s Hot Button will be about.”

  12. EDouglas says:

    You’re still comparing this year to 2001? That year had one of the worst spring seasons ever with bomb after bomb (except for Hannibal) and it took Mummy Returns to turn things around leading to the dawn of the huge opening blockbuster where $50 million became the low-end for what was considered a hit and frontloading became the norm.
    It took four years for things to finally settle down where movies like Saw II don’t do 50% of their business opening weekend, but you still can’t look at late July, August and most of October and deny that the second half of this year has been bad for the most part. The only reason 2005 hasn’t been down more is because earlier in the year, a lot of really bad movies did decent business..which may be why people stopped shelling out their hard-earned money for just anything….Flightplan being the exception.

  13. Sanchez says:

    This Goldstein guy just won’t quit.

  14. Crow T Robot says:

    “The slump” at the very least is a spiritual one, where people these days just don’t feel too optimistic about the general state of movies. Historically when audiences became distracted by other entertainments, the movies evolved to win them back. The Next Big Thing is a few years overdue now. The overwhelming industry fear DP wrote about today (fear that comes about when we start believing the lifeblood of cinema is really money) has crippled this evolution.
    That said, 05 in my opinion has been the most potent year for movies since 02 — and though it may not offer much to love-love-love (well ok, who didn’t LOVE The Wedding Crashers?), a low burning cycle is just fine with me. As long as there’s shit for us to talk about.

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