MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Blood Fever At Dreamamount Builds

Going into the lovely New Year

Be Sociable, Share!

33 Responses to “The Blood Fever At Dreamamount Builds”

  1. waterbucket says:

    I’m confused. What exactly does this have to do with Brokeback Mountain?

  2. Eric says:

    Ha ha. Waterbucket, you beat me to it. I was going to make the exact same joke.
    Anyways, back to Kong vs. Narnia.

  3. Wrecktum says:

    I guess this inside baseball industry info (which I love, more please!) doesn’t play well in Peoria, where people would rather rehash boring old debates.

  4. Eric says:

    I wouldn’t even call them debates. It’s two sides restating their own positions ad infinitum, each oblivious to the other.

  5. grandcosmo says:

    I couldn’t care less about who goes or stays at Paramount.
    Will it result in better movies is the only relevant question to me.

  6. joefitz84 says:

    I like the fantasy baseball analogy. That is actually a fun way to pick who stays and who goes.

  7. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Do I see the hidden hand of Rick Sands? As a Miramax VP he orchestrated Miramax’s hard-right turn after 9/11/2001. Might have even convinced Disney to sack the Weinstein brothers. Sands bailed out just in time to land at . . . DreamWorks.
    As Paramount is owned by Viacom — whose chairman loves Bush — I wouldn’t be surprised if Sands stays on and steers Par further to the right.

  8. joefitz84 says:

    Chucky, you really got to let it go. The right wing conspiracy stuff? Relax.

  9. Sanchez says:

    It’s real funny. Bush is the only guy to get savaged for being dumb and stupid than three days later he’s praised as genuis and cunning enough to sandbag all Liberals into buying what he’s selling. What’s that say about them? They’re hoodwinked by a guy that savage as a box of rocks? The public really wants people like that in charge. People who get hoodwinked by retards.

  10. David Poland says:

    Rick Sands was one of the DWers who was kicked to the curb.

  11. Sanchez says:

    Julian is still PISSED about it.

  12. Lota says:

    goldplated watches? Cheapskates.
    A starf*cks card lasts longer (and it don;t turn green).

  13. bicycle bob says:

    they really give out gold watches as retirement gifts? i thought that was only in the movies.

  14. BluStealer says:

    This is what happens when companies merge or buyout another. Good old fashioned American capitalism. Pink slips are never a good thing but sometimes they are needed. People land on their feet. They always do.

  15. James Leer says:

    Ha, every time Dave posts about people getting laid off there’s a “rah rah capitalism” reply. I was wondering how long it would take.

  16. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, it’s always ‘good old fashioned American capitalism’ when it’s happening to someone else.

  17. bicycle bob says:

    communism called. they want jeff leer back. do u guys call each other up to make sure u follow up back to back whenever the convo veers into anything other than movies?

  18. Rufus Masters says:

    Would you force a company to keep every employee it ever hired even if they weren’t productive or hurt the companies bottom line? Because that’s what it sounds like here.
    I can understand the hatred of big business but you should take a few economics classes before you go flying off the handle about layoffs especially at companies the size of Paramount. That is how the economy works. If you aren’t productive you shouldn’t be employed. If you have issues with that there is always work in China.
    I’ve been laid off before and it’s not a joy. But you have to understand that’s the business world. You have to be indispensible. I am sure these higher ups who are losing their jobs because of the merger have other options and back ups or they wouldn’t be where they are today.

  19. BluStealer says:

    I wish every worker made a billion dollars and had the same work hours and the same benefits and the same attitude and we all shared and shared alike. I’d say wake up but it’s probably a lost cause.
    There’s a reason you go to school, work hard, study, have ambition, show effort, and strive to go up the ladder and be a success. And it’s not because everyone makes the same and earns the same. It’s called freedom.

  20. Josh says:

    If you’re worried about losing your job?
    Then run the company and be the one making the decisions. Easy enough. I’d fire JeffMCM in about two seconds just because.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    The two funniest remarks here:
    BiBob making fun of people backing each other up on their comments…who would ever do that?
    ‘run the company…easy enough’ Yes, easy enough indeed.
    No worries, Josh, you can’t preemptively fire me, I preemptively quit.

  22. Terence D says:

    From what I’ve learned about this blog is to run away anytime a Liberal starts sprouting off on anything other than film. I’d rather gnaw my hand off than listen to it.

  23. David Poland says:

    The unpleasant truth here is that the film studio business is a shrinking one. Many of the people who are being laid off here will have to either leave this industry or will take jobs at smaller companies and will displace other people who will be forced to leave this business.
    Yes, this is the nature of capitalism. And some of the choices that are displacing people who have invested decades at Paramount are good calls. But still… it is hardly something to be blithe about. The people who will most harshly be affected are the ones who are actually working for a living and not the ones in charge who play the endless game of failing up and pass the pipe.
    Maybe we ought to start a season of America’s Net Top Instigator and every week, we can kick someone off the blog.
    “This Week’s Challenge: Get The Dalai Lama To Throw Hot Liquid In Your Face.”

  24. James Leer says:

    Seriously. Coming to a film blog and throwing around the word “liberal” like an epithet is like going to an ice hockey game and trying to use “Canadian” as a slur. A bit pointless.

  25. Bruce says:

    Every industry goes through this. It’s the nature of the beast.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    Sure it’s to be expected. That doesn’t mean we have to just sit back and be glib about it.
    There are a lot of people whose worldviews can’t stand any disruption and take any challenge to the status quo personally.

  27. Mark Ziegler says:

    We all supposed to picket out in front of Paramount because some people are going to lose their jobs?
    I feel bad for them, the timing sucks and I think they’ll be alright in the end. Working for Dreamworks you knew your company was in play for the past two years. This isn’t a shock to the system. Hopefully, they kissed the right people’s butts.

  28. PastePotPete says:

    I don’t really feel too sorry for studio executives. Yeah they’re people and it’s going to be rough on them, my father was fired from his job when I was a kid and it took a toll on us for a while. But imo the studio system is bloated with too many executives and that more than anything is the cause of the relative poorer quality of films we’ve been seeing over the past decade.
    BTW Dave, you read that guest editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday poking holes in the Slump bigtime? It seemed like something that’d be right up your alley.

  29. AgentArc says:

    To be honest, I’d be sad about this… If it was happening to any other studios besides Paramount & Dreamworks (MGM already is in the bag). Talk about a much needed kick in the behind.
    At least I can do a little dance from the news about Rick Sands. Sheesh, what a schmuck.

  30. palmtree says:

    Paramount’s been is disarray ever since the departure of Lansing and DW has been continually haphazardly managed. And with the WB cutting 400 recently, I don’t think either organization was particularly shocked by added layoffs. But still, not exactly a great way to bring in the new year.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    I just want to post here so that every post listed on the front page is either from me or Kamikaze Camel. Rock on!

  32. jeffmcm says:

    I just want to post here so that every post listed on the front page is either from me or Kamikaze Camel. Rock on!

  33. Angelus21 says:

    Thanks. At least the Camel has a point when he posts.

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