MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Lion Beats Giant Monkey

Well… this is more unsettling…
Wednesday estimates from Mojo…
1. The Chronicles of Narnia – $4,940,386
2. King Kong – $4,870,320
The drama continues…

Be Sociable, Share!

65 Responses to “Lion Beats Giant Monkey”

  1. Nicol D says:

    It really is hard to beat a Santa that gives out weapons of war.

  2. patgeary says:

    So Narnia gets to 275 and Kong does 225? Uni will do fine but the big difference is they have 20% out to Peter Jackson. If he has a strong DVD profit definition that really hurts hurts. Disney will 4 times as much on Narnia as UNI does on Kong. That holds even with Walden taking better than half the gross. They’ll both make plenty of money.

  3. joefitz84 says:

    This is huge news. Narnia is proving to be up to the challenge here.

  4. Sanchez says:

    I doubt Uni will be crying when all is said and done on Kong.

  5. Scooba Steve says:

    The only people who felt the need for a 3 hour King Kong were the 3 who made it.
    I know Gollum. I worked with Gollum. And you Mister Ape are no Gollum.

  6. JohnBritt says:

    Kong will come out okay. Still waiting for the 20 weeks to Oscar charts. Anytime he writes that it will be up later, it never seems to get there. Anyway, it’s the holidays. All’s forgiven. 🙂

  7. anghus says:

    yeah, everyone kind of assumed Kong would eat up all the box office. Did you guys see the covers of Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone, both anticipating Kong being the biggest thing ever? That’s what gets me, not the film (though i thought it was average), but the press outlets assuming that this was going to be the biggest film of the year.
    Most people wrote off Narnia after that massive shift from it’s first weekend, but it has legs. It’ll probably continue to do solid business through the holidays. Much more of a family film than Kong, and shorter to boot.

  8. palmtree says:

    Even I thought KK would beat Narnia. But I think it may be time to make the case for quality of source material. A literary classic with a strong religious fanbase crosses boundaries that a film geek-centric B-movie homage does not. I loved King Kong, and the great movie that lurked within its 3 hour running time. But if the source material can’t get them in the door, they won’t know how good it is anyways.

  9. Mr. Bloppy says:

    I think Narnia was just better marketed.
    I agree with anghus, it was amusing to see the media just talk about how Kong was going to wipe everyone else off the map and turns out they were wrong. Why did we all assume Kong was going to be bigger? It didn’t look any better to me than Narnia. I guess it was just Jackson’s pedigree.

  10. lazarus says:

    I think whatever happens, Return of the Sith’s crown for box office champ isn’t going anywhere. Since it probably won’t win any Oscars, that will have to suffice as some kind of satisfaction for Lucas. He won the popular vote.

  11. lazarus says:

    There’s no way a shorter cut wouldn’t have fared better with reviewers and the audience. I’m sure the word of mouth that people are hearing from those that have seen it are “entertaining but long”, and that is going to put off a lot of potential viewers.
    I hate to accuse Jackson of hubris, but this one definitely got away from him, dream project or no. And I think it’s unfair that Jackson isn’t getting half the criticism Marty did for over-obsessing on Gangs of New York. At least GONY’s shortcomings didn’t involve gratuitous scenes that were unnecessary, like the dinosaur stampede and the insect pit.
    In the end, it’s hard to put Jackson up with the greats. Coppola took all his good fortune and clout after The Godfather and gave us Apocalypse Now, which is a true sprawling, materpiece of a mess. Jackson after his success gave us King Kong. Not even close.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Lucas is probably still hoping for Best Visual Effects, considering that Phantom Menace lost to The Matrix and Clones lost to Two Towers. If I were in the Academy it would be a tough call but I think I would vote for ILM over WETA this year.

  13. palmtree says:

    I think the B.O. disappointment will seriously impair its Oscar hopes (though not necessarily in the effects department). If the infamous story of the year was the slump, then KK would have had to be lauded for breaking it. Now it feels like a loser even though it isn’t.
    And I agree with Lazarus, Coppola’s Apocalypse Now is great as the Vietnam War updating the literary classic Heart of Darkness. It was relevant and politically incisive in its time and even today. King Kong is the remake no one was waiting for (aka Godzilla).

  14. Lota says:

    not surprised. i said on the other thread on the friday or weekend estimates Narnia will build as all the bookish 30-somethings and their young families go to the theatre while school’s off. I’ve seen Narnia and Kong now, and while I think both were well made, Narnia will be the movie where the audience “cares”.
    I’m not religious, yet TLTWATW was a favorite book at age 10, and the movie doesn’t disappoint in that most things seemed as I imagined them. I would have loved to have seen this movie at 10-12 age. I do think father Christmas should have rewarded the beavers on camera however. Tilda Swinton rocked (chick with a sword can’t lose) but her teeth did not.
    I think Narnia was allegorical enough, that it is suitable for Chanukkah, Christmas etc. and this seemed to be what the folks were talking about when the movie was over. The writers did leave out CS Lewis’ occasional inflexibility, probably as a result of his Northern irish protestant upbringing. Humorous and ironic that a Ballymena Catholic raised man was the voice of Aslan (Liam Neeson).
    I guess the bottom line is that the actors didn’t convince me by the end of Kong movie that I should care about Kong! I cared about Kong when I saw the original on TV. But I was convinced to care about the characters in Narnia.
    Best reactions to trailors this week–Glory Road…worst reactions–that new animation thing from Dreamworks.

  15. jeffmcm says:

    The difference between Coppola and Jackson is the difference between a director striving for art and a director indulging his inner 10-year-old.
    The difference between Jackson and Roland Emmerich is the difference between a talented, passionate filmmaker and a hack out for a paycheck.

  16. Blackcloud says:

    Welcome aboard, David, I knew you’d come around.

  17. Wayman_Wong says:

    ”Where does an 800-pound gorilla sit?” Well, I guess not at the top of the box-office chart anymore. The original ”King Kong” ran only a little more than an hour and a half. Why did it take Peter Jackson 3 hours to tell the same story? It’s ridiculous that it’s over an hour before we even reach Skull Island. The gorilla is animated very well, but I gotta add that I thought the dinosaur stampede (recycled from ”Jurassic Park”) looked hokey and strained credibility, and the attack of the giant insects and man-eating worms was superfluous. Plus, the zombie-like dark-skinned natives came off as such racist stereotypes. And Adrien Brody’s taxi chase scene was more waste of time. For me, it wasn’t beauty that killed the beast; it was boredom.

  18. Lynn says:

    Personally, I think the “religious fanbase” aspect of Narnia has been a bit overblown; the marketing aside, this isn’t PotC or Left Behind that’s going to appeal to the extremely devout or literal types looking for an overtly religious movie.
    But it *is* a book remembered and beloved by millions of children and young adults who are now grown up, as well as their kids and even grandkids. I have a friend who’s an atheist who remembers Narnia as the defining literary experience of her childhood, what Harry Potter is to lots of kids today. I remember my brother reading The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe… the only other stuff I remember him reading voluntarily until he was about 16 were “choose your own adventure,” encylopedia brown, comics and Mad magazine.
    I know this is anecdotal but I don’t think these are rare exceptions. Narnia may not have infiltrated popular culture like superheroes or Nancy Drew, but we’d have said the same thing about Lord of the Rings a few years back. These are just terribly popular books that have stood the test of time, and yes, they certainly have religious allegory, but if you choose to ignore it (or are too young to be aware of it… which a lot of people I know were when they first read them), it’s just a damn good story.
    Plus, are there a lot of other family-oriented movies out there right now that don’t look simply dreadful? What are you gonna take your kids to, if you’re a parent who has them at home over break — Narnia or Cheaper by the Dozen 2? Yours, Mine and Ours? Ugh.

  19. palmtree says:

    Narnia didn’t impress me as much as a film as King Kong. But Narnia the book is a fond memory while the original King Kong movie was a footnote in trips to Universal Studios. Marketing has a lot to do with it (Narnia was sold as a fantasy/religious tale to Christians while KK was sold as a multimedia product placement extravaganza). But even as artful a director as Jackson can’t sell a movie with a story people aren’t as interested in.

  20. Eric says:

    I just love the way Jeff Wells has done a chickenshit 180 on Kong, now that it’s not proving to be the overwhelmingly popular smash hit everybody expected. What an ass.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    Don’t read Jeff Wells! You’re just encouraging him.

  22. Crow T Robot says:

    Chicken shit is the best way to put it. Well’s really taken this Louis Black thing to heart. But to backtrack an opinion because of box office figures makes him the Ratso Rizzo of bloggers. Fuck em.
    As for Kong… it’s such an elaborate, very heartfelt labour of love. How can anyone not see the care that went into every inch of it? Every inch a king! It’s somehow fitting that we find the film on the ground dying with crowds of people around taking pictures and smiling.

  23. PetalumaFilms says:

    When I saw KING KONG people were laughing at his extremely realistic ape movements (at stuff that really wasn’t “funny,” but a really, really good rendition of an ape) and there were definitely NOT buying the Kong/Ann love story. I don’t think people are “getting” it….oh well. Their loss.

  24. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    People aren’t “getting” the Kong/Ann romance because it’s a freakin gorilla and a human. I’m sure people get that Ann likes Kong, but romantic love is a bit of a stretch.
    Crow, I can easily sit there and admire the dedication that went into ANY movie, but when that dedication also leads to indulgance, I find it harder to care.
    I still think that when it comes to seeing a big blockbuster this time of the year more people would choose to see the 2hour adaptation of the literary classic over the 3hour remake of a 1933 gorilla movie. We’ll see how it goes AFTER Christmas though, but still… ouch.

  25. lindenen says:

    The eventual fan edits will probably be better than the film itself.

  26. bicycle bob says:

    jeff wells is like any good liberal. he can’t make up his mind and flip flops his position.

  27. Bruce says:

    Narnia was just okay. King Kong was the best film of the year. No accounting for taste at the BO. We all know this.

  28. Me says:

    I gotta agree with palmtree – source material definitely wins this one. (That and what Lota said about actually caring about the Narnia story/characters, while caring less about Kong.)
    Narnia may be less ambitious than Kong, but it actually hit all of its goals, while Kong is an overlong pretentious borefest.
    Sorry – Narnia’s the better movie.

  29. Eric says:

    Bob, I know you’re just trying to goad people, but I’m going to halfway agree with you.
    Wells is like a caricature of the worst aspects of liberalism. Opinionated but uninformed, sanctimonious, loud-mouthed, and snooty. The majority of liberals are not like that, just like the majority of conservatives are not like the Santorum caricature. It’s too bad the most vocal five percent on each side is misconstrued as representative of the whole.

  30. bicycle bob says:

    not trying to goad anyone. im just stating a fact.

  31. Blackcloud says:

    “Sorry – Narnia’s the better movie.”
    There’s no need to apologize for stating the truth.

  32. LesterFreed says:

    I can’t read Wells anymore. Every column is about him and not the film industry anymore. And anyone who calls DP smug has never read Wells.

  33. Blackcloud says:

    I stopped reading Wells two websites ago.

  34. Josh says:

    I thought they were both good movies.

  35. Bruce says:

    How is Narnia better than Kong? It was decent but it wasn’t on Kong’s level. Maybe if Peter Jackson directed Narnia. But that’s wishful thinking.

  36. Eric says:

    Bob: You’re really not interested in any sort of discussion, are you?
    Josh: It hasn’t occurred to me before reading your post that it’s okay not to take sides, and just enjoy both Narnia and Kong. Refreshing.

  37. bicycle bob says:

    what discussion? u said i was trying to goad people. which i wasn’t doing at all. so i had to correct u. just stating the facts here. but i did like ur point about the 5 percenters.

  38. BluStealer says:

    I do think Narnia was much better marketed and appeals more to children. Which is where blockbusters like this make their money in the long run. Repeat business is key.

  39. Terence D says:

    My kids loved Narnia. I was unimpressed overall but I have sat thru much worse.
    They haven’t seen Kong yet. Definately, this week since school’s not in session and the holidays will be less hectic. I think they’ll like it, especially my boys, if they can get over the overly long prelude.

  40. Blackcloud says:

    “How is Narnia better than Kong? It was decent but it wasn’t on Kong’s level. Maybe if Peter Jackson directed Narnia. But that’s wishful thinking.”
    If he’d directed it then we’d get a whole extra hour of mindless slo-mo and reaction shots. No thanks.

  41. Bruce says:

    The wolves are out for Jackson’s blood. I see how it is. The Rings haters have been waiting for this for years.

  42. Me says:

    Bruce, I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, and Frighteners even more than that. But Kong really was just long, boring and pretentious. I’m not a hater, just liked Narnia more. Personally, I just don’t understand what the supposed greatness of Kong is as it certainly wasn’t the characters.

  43. Lota says:

    Bruce I agree Kong is a well-made movie. but I just didn’t CARE, I am not sure if it was the length or lack of human chemistry but I got more out of Sigourney’s Dian Fossey-gorilla interactions and Dian Fossey’s porblems with other humans than I got out of any aspect of Kong. I can’t put my finger on what about the human-to-human intensity/chemistry and human-to-ape-sympathy was missing but something was.
    One must be emotional about a movie to love it–I can’t rate movies that look good or that are well-made or technically astounding if they leave me lukewarm-to cold like Kong did.
    Narnia may have had sentimental hogwash interweaved in bits, but I still loved those kids and remember putting myself in Lucy’s shoes when i read that book at ten.
    The opening to Narnia was spectacular and really is the clincher for the movie–much more gripping than the book and really isolates the kids in their special world immediately.

  44. Bruce says:

    I can understand why people didn’t like Kong. Long movies are tough to embrace. They really are. Movies that are 3 hours long need to be more than great to hit with everyone.

  45. Eric says:

    If you’re interested in how Peter Jackson would have directed Narnia, couldn’t you just go back and watch Return of the King? I liked Narnia, but I had the distinct feeling that I’d seen everything in it before.
    By the way, I really hated the Santa Claus bit. Regardless of whether it was in the book or not, it just didn’t belong.

  46. Martin S says:

    PJ doesn’t love Kong, he love his memory of Kong.
    His Kong remake would be the same as if Lucas remade Flash Gordon instead of making Star Wars, or Spielberg grabbed the Quartermain rights instead of creating Indy.
    What Lucas and Spielberg understand that PJ doesn’t is that you cannot memorex your childhood, but you can recapture the sensations from that moment. PJ would have been much better off doing a Kong-type film, but not Kong itself.
    Kong is engrained into my childhood. The fact that PJ could not discern the difference between Kong and Mighty Joe Young – as characters, in relationships – still astounds me.

  47. Melquiades says:

    This Kong bashing is just funny.
    The movie is at 83% on Rotten Tomatoes (9% higher than Narnia) and sits at #7 on the MCN combined Top Ten List (Narnia has only one mention).
    Because it’s underachieving at the box office, everybody is piling on like it’s some kind of disaster. It’s not. It’s too long, sure, but so was Return of the King — and that thing won 11 Oscars and killed at the box office.
    Jackson isn’t doing anything different here than what he’s been praised for the past 4 years. It’s just that the “big ape” movie isn’t reaching as broad an audience as hoped.
    But it’s a very good movie, despite its flaws. It’s the most resonant “romace” outside of Brokeback Mountain this year and it’s a “visual feast” like nothing I’ve ever seen.

  48. Rufus Masters says:

    King Kong has flaws but it was one hell of a ride once it got going.
    Narnia wasn’t even in the same league with it.

  49. Melquiades says:

    “romace” … I mean, as you certainly guessed, “romance.”

  50. Crow T Robot says:

    Non-sequitur review quote of the day
    Ebert on Wolf Creek:
    “A “misogynist” is someone who hates women. I’m explaining that because most people who hate women don’t know the word.”

  51. Mr. Bloppy says:

    I too think the Christian thing for Narnia was overstated in the media. It’s clear that the media (most of whom are not religious) love to talk about the religion “angle” whenever they can. Disney said in an article that about 5% of their marketing was directed at religious groups. I think it was media hype that made it feel more so. Everything I read in the press mentioned that. Everything I saw as a consumer–trailers and tv spots said it was a Harry Potter-esque fantasy film.

  52. Nicol D says:

    “It’s the most resonant “romace” outside of Brokeback Mountain this year and it’s a “visual feast” like nothing I’ve ever seen.”
    It cannot be stated enough. The two big Hollywood ‘romances’ of Christmas season are between a woman and an ape and a man and a man. Welcome to the age of ‘enlightenment’.

  53. Wrecktum says:

    Don’t let that “5%” comment fool you. Disney was very aggressive in their courting of the evangelical audience. Motive Marketing was running around like crazed wolverines for months marshalling the troops. Just because they didn’t spend a lot of cash on it doesn’t mean it wasn’t prevalent. After all, how much more does it cost to buy a TV spot on Housewives vs. flying Doug Gresham around the country to give talks at Christian conferences?

  54. Mr. Bloppy says:

    Wrecktum: Yes, they had a religious plan, obviously. My point was just that when you spend a lot of money on media, it usually overtakes any sort of “niche” marketing like courting religious groups. Most of those evangelical families they courted were going to go see Narnia anyway most likely. Again, the fact that they could only spend a small amount of their resources on a plan like that and get such a big return is another example of how the film was better marketed.
    How do you know they had Motive running around like “Crazed Wolverines”?

  55. PetalumaFilms says:

    Uhh…I don’t think the love and caring between Ann Darrow and Kong is “romantic,” it’s about two misunderstood people looking for safety and caring in a crazy world. If you can’t think of anything besides huge monkey cock and a blonde chick, perhaps you should tap into the racist themes of the movie as well.
    I’m not saying “you” are racist….I’m just saying that’s a theme in the movie. And also alot of people don’t like folks from Africa messing with their white women and I think that’s a big theme in the movie as well. Wheee!

  56. Me says:

    Melquiades, so if 83% of the critics on rottentomatoes like something, I should replace my opinion with theirs. If it’s okay with you, I’ll make up my own mind if something is overlong and pretentious or not – whether it is a box office hit or not.

  57. Me says:

    If you can’t see the difference between the emotion and depth between Kong and RotK, or think that a movie is good because it is a visual feast, rather than, oh I don’t know, good characters, emotion, nuance, etc. then, yeah, I can see why you’d think Kong is a masterpiece.
    I just disagree on your definition of what makes for a good film.

  58. palmtree says:

    ROTK was a special case. Jackson was rewarded for not one film but three. Additionally, the Tolkien source material was relevant (hints of patriotism and a war against terrorism) and revered (as a literary masterpiece with appreciation from hippie counterculturists and fanboys too). So a 3 hour ROTK seems justified. A 3 hour King Kong feels bloated by contrast without the richness of stellar source material.

  59. Me says:

    Palmtree, I think your argument about source material is right on.
    I believe there was more to the characters in RotK than Kong. The hobbits had character growth and their own stories that people at least could relate to or sympathize with, or at the very least find interesting. Who were we supposed to care about in Kong? The murderous simpleton ape? The idiotic blond actress? The coniving movie producer? The pretentious stock characters?
    The source material for Narnia was also strong, leading to the kids having flaws and strengths and their own story arcs you could care about.
    I guess what it comes down to was that Kong may have been directed well, but its script was appallingly bad, which probably came from the fact that there wasn’t ever much of a script for any Kong movie.

  60. Lynn says:

    Not only were there more to the characters, but there were a lot more of them. Most of that movie has four parallel storylines going on, all of them important.
    Even at 3 hours 10 minutes (w/o credits), there were a lot of important moments (to fans of the book) left out. Even the extended DVD left stuff out! (I’m still a little sad we never got to see Aragorn healing Faramir and Faramir waking to acknowledge him as king, or the wedding scene they filmed.) Anyway — the length and complexity of the book more than justified the length and complexity of the film, IMO. I am not sure the same is true for Kong. Then again, I’m always happier if there aren’t scenes involving scary bugs. (Yes, I know — I’m such a girl.)

  61. Melquiades says:

    Me — I’m not saying you (or anybody) should like Kong because the great majority of critics do. I’m saying it’s silly to write a Kong obituary as if it’s Gigli based solely on underperformance at the box office.
    Put it this way… if the movie was breaking every box office record, would that make your dislike of it less valid? Of course not. And its box office “failure” doesn’t erase the FACT that it’s one of the year’s most critically-acclaimed films.
    And I never said Kong is a masterpiece. I said it’s flawed but I enjoy it nonetheless. Certainly more than Return of the King, which seemed twice as long as the (admittedly way overlong) Kong. My very favorite movies are usually heavy on character and emotion, and that’s why this one doesn’t number among them, but I go to movies for a lot of different reasons.

  62. vinnotdiesel says:

    Ok, Jeff Wells did mention that Kong had certain logic problems in his initial review and it just looks like he’s elaborating on them now after thinking it through.
    And how do guys who’re calling him chickenshit explain his very public rancor for the LOTR trilogy? That series had a much larger set of fans (vocal ones at that) and Wells took all the numerous lickings that came his way like a man but stuck to his guns. For 3 whole years right into the 11 Oscars and Jackson’s coronation as the new King of the World.
    That line about how its safe to write about Kong was probably thrown as bait for a lot of Wells detractors (of whom this board doesn’t seem to have any shortage of) to jump on him.
    I’m pretty sure Jeff enjoys the hate-mail.

  63. vinnotdiesel says:

    Ok, Jeff Wells did mention that Kong had certain logic problems in his initial review and it just looks like he’s elaborating on them now after thinking it through.
    And how do guys who’re calling him chickenshit explain his very public rancor for the LOTR trilogy? That series had a much larger set of fans (vocal ones at that) and Wells took all the numerous lickings that came his way like a man but stuck to his guns. For 3 whole years right into the 11 Oscars and Jackson’s coronation as the new King of the World.
    That line about how its safe to write about Kong was probably thrown as bait for a lot of Wells detractors (of whom this board doesn’t seem to have any shortage of) to jump on him.
    I’m pretty sure Jeff enjoys the hate-mail.

  64. Melquiades says:

    What bothers me about Wells is his total inability to respect others’ opinions as even semi-legitimate.
    For example, look at his current top Wired item, in which he bashes David Edelstein for calling Munich the year’s best film. Wells thinks this must be some political statement because “face it,” the movie is deeply flawed.
    Ditto any praise Keira Knightley (or Pride & Prejudice) has gotten. To paraphrase… “This [fill in the critic/group] is clearly trying to look cool to young people by calling Keira Knightley’s performance one of the year’s best. There’s no debating that it’s awful start to finish…”

  65. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    “Uhh…I don’t think the love and caring between Ann Darrow and Kong is “romantic,” it’s about two misunderstood people looking for safety and caring in a crazy world.”
    Again, it’s a giant monkey movie. I don’t think they were striving for socio-political relevance.

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