MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Working On It, But…

The Hollywood Reporter ran a review of V for Vendetta, which was shown at Harry Knowles’ Butt-Numb-A-Thon a couple fo weeks ago.
My first reaction is that this a landmark embargo crusher. But I am working through the players, trying to get their positions in all of this. I’m curious about your first reactions.

Be Sociable, Share!

61 Responses to “Working On It, But…”

  1. Jimmy the Gent says:

    It sounds like an interesting movie. Who is the writer? Is the Hollywood Reporter known for printing reviews by “plants”? It would be great if this turned out to be aa good as everyone hopes.

  2. EDouglas says:

    David, AICN by its very existence is an embargo crusher. They really need to have AICN detectors at all press and test screenings… 🙂

  3. Nicol D says:

    The world of cinema and promotion is always changing and we are into a new phase. The Waschowskis playing Buttwhateverathon is them trying to gin up thier base of fans for a film that will be a difficult mainstream sell. Thier popularity is waning and The Matrix was more of a fad than a lasting legend.
    Was this not postponed as a summer blockbuster because of the original author saying it was not a good adaptation of his work?
    Now it is coming out in the dregs of winter. I do not believe it was postponed for political content. I doubt the makers cared much about the London bombings.
    AICN is now part of the ‘official underground’ nature of film marketing. Companies use them and vice versa.
    The review was positive and I’m sure they will not mind.
    I think this film will probably not have the impact they hope. They will want to be portrayed as rebels in the media and yes some will play into their hands. But overall, I think this film will rate a big fat yawn with the public.
    This is not a serious exploration like Munich. This is more juvenillia from filmmakers who get their worldview from comics and will most likely only play to the fan-boy Knowles crowd.

  4. PandaBear says:

    How serious can it be? It’s a comic book.

  5. prideray says:

    Isn’t there more tolerance for this kind of thing when it’s a qualified rave like this review?

  6. Angelus21 says:

    When has AICN ever cared about embargoes or anything like editorial standards and ethics?

  7. Josh says:

    Obviously, they had their full permission to write it because it is a rave. If it was in any way bad? Forget it.

  8. Mark Ziegler says:

    Hollywood cannot do Allan Moore justice. Hasn’t even been close yet. Thank God they haven’t made The Watchmen yet and ruined that yet.

  9. lazarus says:

    Nicol D, did you even READ the review? Because as much as I thought the Wachowskis disappeared up their own asses with the Matrix sequels, the writer goes out of his way to contrast the V screenplay with that creation. He also talks about how the filmmakers ground the story to the real world as much as possible. This is just one guy’s opinion, but this taken alongside the AICN reviews lead me to believe this IS going to be a thinkpiece, and not some kind of teen fantasy.

  10. DaveyJones says:

    “How serious can it be? It’s a comic book.”
    Road to Perdition was a comic book.

  11. Lynn says:

    So was A History of Violence. Although the final product bears little resemblance to the original, it was the inspiration for it.

  12. Hopscotch says:

    I don’t know about the review…but those trailers blow. I’ll wait for word of mouth on this one.

  13. Aladdin Sane says:

    I think the comic is interesting. Hopefully the movie lives up to it. I think that WB knew that someone from Hollywood Reporter was at the Butt-numb-athon thing. If the ’embargo’ was an issue they wouldn’t have let Harry show the film, since theoretically as EDouglas says, AICN was made to bust embargos.

  14. anghus says:

    Dave. I know you have a mad hard on for the guys over at AICN. Every time you write something about them, you can almost feel the rampant prejudice you have against them. Because Dave, you are old school. You write about structure, awards, and box office, things that the guys at Aint it Cool don’t give a rats ass about. The internet has completely changed the game, but you are still applying ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ on issues like embargos as if we’re still operating under some movie industry code of ethics that only exists in your mind. The days of the studios controlling information is gone, and they’ve done a piss poor job at finding a way to use the internet to their advantadge. Hell, you can look at King Kong for that. All the web blogs in the world hasn’t propelled Kong any higher, though they are entertaining. It seems pretty obvious that when you write about Harry and the guys at AICN, you suffer from web envy. Their influence, or percieved influence, whatever anyone believes is something that can be discussed, weighed, and talked about. Whereas you are little more than a commentator. There’s nothing wrong with being a commentator, but i fundamentally believe that you will never be able to write a piece about Aint it Cool news that isn’t tainted with your disdain for them, and more importantly, what their grassroots film geekery has done to level the impact of so-called ‘legitimate’ journalistic publications and web sites. Dave, the times they are a changing, and you can rail all you want to, but in the end, the game has changed. Whether you think it’s changed for the better or worse is irrelevant. Most people i talked to who went to Butt Numb A Thon raved about V for Vendetta. Many said it was better than Kong. So im sure Warner Bros. is thrilled with the press. So who gets hurt here Dave?

  15. patgeary says:

    It’s THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER that broke the embargo – NOT AICN. That’s why it is significant. Now let’s see if Variety continues to suck up to the studios and reviews the picture after THE NEW YORK and LA TIMES. Hopefully, this is a sign that the trade press may start to report news rather than publish press releases.

  16. Sanchez says:

    AICN sucks. That’s not exactly news.

  17. anghus says:

    thats the big thing in all of this. Harry and company do what they do out of the love for film and the world that surrounds it. How the industry reacts to this kind of thing is the true story. I remember when i went to the Butt Numb A Thon a few years back and they showed Passion of the Christ 3 months early, and everyone gave Harry crap about it. Is it his fault that people screen their movies early for a small audeince. If the ‘legitimate’ publications decide to run stories based off what Harry’s doing, then fine. At least it would be an antiquated and outdated publication reacting to the new age of film.

  18. martin says:

    my respect for HR just dropped a few notches. When they start mentioning their bowel movements prior to showtime, I’ll stop reading altogether.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    The problems with the AICN crowd are that their exuberance often gets the better of them, and that the studios can manipulate them easily. Harry and the rest may like to think of themslves as rebels, but they’re easy to buy off and they don’t have journalistic standard to hold themselves too. When bloggers etc. can stand back and hold themselves to proper accountability, that’s when new media will truly flourish.

  20. anghus says:

    the last time i got into this with Dave, back around the Passion of the Christ thing, it was that same quote: ‘their exuberance gets the better of them’… ‘they get manipulated, etc etc’. Again, their actual impact on the industry can be debated, but their influence can not be. Honestly, i think the journalistic standards you speak of have been absent for a long time. Every major publication has had major issues with accountability and fact checking. Actual journalism has been replaced with papparazzi style reporting and really annoying box office and awards prognostication. The media has always been manipulated by the studios. How many ‘journalists’ have had the balls to ask Jennifer Aniston about Brad and Angelina? They instead ask puff piece questions so they can keep good relationships. Why punish a bunch of admitted film geeks for not giving a damn about such piffle. But to play Devil’s Advocate, why not try and convince me what a journalistic standard would do to improve Aint it Cool? Personally, i think sticking to the basic journalistic precepts in entertainment reporting would do nothing but hinder them.

  21. anghus says:

    oh, and my question to the Hot Button crowd is this?
    Who is Aint it Cool News hurting? I really am curious to hear your opinions on this.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    You’re probably right about the problems of traditional media. But lacking any standards whatsoever, I have a hard time maintaining respect for AICN as anything other than a bunch of fans with a specific, fairly narrow viewpoint.

  23. anghus says:

    i think the very narrow viewpoint can be attributed to the fanboy legions that like the genre flicks, but look at their site right now. Everything from Kong to Brokeback Mountain to Munich. I wouldn’t call that narrow.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    Where’s their discussion of CACHE?!

  25. lazarus says:

    I thought the review of V For Vendetta (contained in a longer post regarding the whole of the Butt-Numb-A-Thon) written by AICN contributor Massawyrm was far from juvenile fanboy raving. It was nicely done, and combined with a couple other level-headed reviews of V is what really got me excited to see the film.
    And I find it sad that those would take Harry to task for being able to sneak movies to eager film geeks. The guy is living out his dream, and writes about his experiences passionately. It doesn’t make him objective, but no film reviewer is. DP might not want to admit it, but the image of some fat guy in a basement surrounded by toys becoming a media figure of note has to make someone closer to “legit” journalism a little jealous.

  26. axel says:

    Harry is full of hyperbole, but then wasn’t David Poland’s “King Kong” piece over the top in enthusiasm, with claims it would rival Titanic? (correct me if I’m wrong, Sir, but I remember it saying that and having DP name on it).
    NON AICN great review: (sorry can’t locate instructions in FAQ on making links)
    “All the doubts I had about V For Vendetta were unfounded. It’s an outstanding achievement, and it pulls not a single punch in bringing Moore’s novel to the screen. People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Government, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People – that ideal courses through every frame of the film. I cannot believe a movie with these concepts, expressed so directly, is being put out by a studio. It’s a piece of dynamite, and hopefully it’ll be handled correctly when it opens in March. That Warners is premiering it at Berlin in the spring seems somewhat indicative of their plans for it; it certainly deserves a prestige rollout. And I guess I can say it’s the best film I’ve seen so far next year.”

  27. bicycle bob says:

    the trailer looks real good for this. we know portman can carry an action movie like this because she did it when she was 13 in the professional.

  28. Nordling says:

    I was one of the reviewers who saw V FOR VENDETTA at Butt-Numb-A-Thon, and reviewed it for AICN. At no time was I ever given any sort of caveat about writing any review, good or bad, about any of the films screened there. And if I thought V FOR VENDETTA wasn’t a good film I would not have hesitated in writing such. But I thought the film was amazing. I’ve seen some pretty crappy movies at BNAT (whoa, that PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, boy) and this wasn’t one of them. I also know of a few people who didn’t like it, yes – and their opinion was more political in nature than to the film – but the majority of the audience really loved it and wouldn’t stop talking about it, even as BNAT ended and we all went our separate ways. I think Wanrer Bros. wants open discussion of this film, otherwise they would have put an embargo on us, which has happened before, by the way. We have had to avoid discussing certain films before, and I have had no problem with that. But there was no such request about V FOR VENDETTA.

  29. bicycle bob says:

    and harry puts up ur negative review? doubtful. highly doubtful. that was part of the quid pro quo between him and them. its not a conspiracy theory here. its just how it is there.

  30. Josh says:

    “thats the big thing in all of this. Harry and company do what they do out of the love for film and the world that surrounds it. How the industry reacts to this kind of thing is the true story.”
    For love? Maybe 7 years ago but now it’s for the money, fame, job opportunities and the chance to whore themselves out. To say it’s about love at Aint It Cool is naive. What was the last bit of “cool news” they had there? Every story they have now is taken from other news sources. They don’t get scoops anymore. They get really hard to read reviews from studio execs or rival execs. It’s a game now.

  31. Nordling says:

    Post a negative review of a film? Sure he would. I loathed PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and he posted that when I wrote my BNAT review last year.

  32. bicycle bob says:

    you make it sound like u deserve some kind of award for writing a negative review of phantom of the opera. like get real. i’d take u a little more seriously if u guys wrote negative reviews of movies u didn’t have working relationships with or deals with or get gifts from. no matter what now aicn is compromised ethically. and negative reviews of rollerball and phantom of the opera won’t change that. knowing thats the two examples aicn defenders always throw out.

  33. Bruce says:

    Here’s a question.
    Does anyone actually read a Harry or AICN review and take it seriously anyway? I chewed my hand off when I read his reviews. It took me an hour to get past what him and Father Geek had for lunch and what they did while they waited during previews before he even got to his raves. It was painful.
    Anyone see the episode of Entourage last year with the Harry Knowles character who sells his early rave reviews for money, goodies, and girls? Hilarious. Spot on.

  34. Nordling says:

    Wow, you’re absolutely right. Just so happens I’m gonna go cash my Warner Bros. check today. Man, I can’t wait to hit the all-you-can-eat buffets later.

  35. bicycle bob says:

    who would expect the lowly, anonymous internet reviewer to get anything? harry gets all the gifts and the fame and the money. not his “spies”. and if u wrote anything less than a rave about v for vendetta harry wouldn’t have published it. its just the way it goes. u think hes gonna ruin his relations with them over nordlings thoughts on an early screening? ur deluded. but enjoy the buffet.

  36. Nordling says:

    I can’t hope to change anyone’s minds – you’re far too entrenched. People can say whatever they want, and I can only offer my opinion. Thanks.

  37. BluStealer says:

    I will say going to that site eventually lead me to find much more informative and better updated sites like Dave Poland’s. So, it’s been good for something.

  38. Josh says:

    I don’t particulary like reading reviews of screenings or early rough cuts because the movie isn’t finished yet. Still has ways to go. Plus, I just don’t trust them.

  39. Martin S says:

    “Harry and company do what they do out of the love for film and the world that surrounds it”…
    Anghus, you are easily the dumbest f**k I’ve read in a while. You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to film journalism/criticism, Poland and AICN.
    If it was really about “the love for film”, Knowles would have been independently producing years ago. He’s got all the connections – talent, money, equipment, distributors – anyone could ever want. Instead, he waits until someone bites on a studio ddeal. It’s not love of film, it’s love of being recognized by Hollywood.

  40. Bruce says:

    The thing with AICN is that everyone concedes they put internet movie journalism on the map. But they have been stuck in reverse watching everyone else pass them by. They’re motivation wasn’t to be journalists and create a whole new and revolutionary industry. It was to score fame, fortune, girls, and all the rest of it. Hence, why they seem to be going even less than half ass right now. And they need their two bit reviewers to defend them. You know Drew McWeeny is here because he posts whenever Dave has something to say about them.

  41. Kambei says:

    Ah…people love their conspiracy theories these days, don’t they? I guess unabashed enthusiasm has no place on the internet these days. The continual search for ulterior motives in others merely reflects on one’s own moral fiber.

  42. anghus says:

    honestly, Nordling is right. Those who dislike Harry, Moriarty, and the others can’t be comvinced, nor do they want to be. Like Dave, they have the preconcieved notions about them, and will never be convinced otherwise. And to all of you noble posters who say ‘theyre all about the money, fame, women, movie deals, etc.’… well, i hate to clue you all in but you know what: so would you. If you had an interesting website, and people started talking about you, then you were offered film deals and jobs from what you did, i’m sure you’d turn it all down because of artistic integrity or journalistic ethics. Anyone who says “Harry isn’t about film fans…” has never met Harry, or sat down and talked to him. Why can’t a person report on the film industry, AND use it to network their way into a career. It’s like begrudging a starlet’s fame because she sucked Joel Silver’s dick to get her first part. People get into the industry in various ways. These guys started a website… it became really popular, and now they have careers within the industry. Get off your fucking crosses, and stop begrudging other people’s successes. At the end of the day, the negative posts read like is “i’m sad that it’s them and not me”.

  43. SpamDooley says:

    .” Why can’t a person report on the film industry, AND use it to network their way into a career.”
    Angus you tremendous throbbing dick- because that is a conflict of interest. What a shithead you are. But Knowles has no career- Ghost Town ain’t happening at Revolution any time soon and John Carter with Jon Favreau after Zathura- LOL!
    I am Spam Dooley and I FEED my people.

  44. anghus says:

    Dooley, a couple of issues.
    First off, my name is anghus. not angus. reading really is fundamental. Second, my dick is both tremendous and throbbing. Thanks for noticing.
    Third… this massive ‘conflict of interest’ you and your ilk always seem to trump… tell me who are they in conflict with. They report on films, they post reviews from advance screenings, and that somehow disqualifies them from working in the industry?
    So again, i ask: whose interest are they in conflict with? The answer seems painfully obvious: yours. And at the end of the day, i’m gonna bet they really don’t care about your interest. Because i’m sure everyone here lives on a much higher level of existence and would never use good connections to try and make a career for themselves. Jealous, bitter, hypocrites. And Dooley, your opinion might be more valid if you didn’t seem to revel in the potential failure of projects theyre working on.

  45. JBM... says:

    I don’t think anyone here’s particularly jealous of or bitter towards Knowles/McWeeny. I mean, seriously — Ghost Town? Race with the Devil? Pavlov’s Dogs? Dread? Are you fucking kidding me?

  46. JBM... says:

    And I seem to recall McWeeny doing reviews for Revolution films after writing for them. Haha…Revolution…

  47. Kambei says:

    In response to someone asking “where is the talk about Cache?”, see below for some links and i’m sure there will be more when the film comes out in NA. Also, for people who don’t think they run negative reviews for movies they “support”, they do, they just have a caveat at the start of the article along the lines of “here’s a negative review, but i’m still excited to see this…” etc… I’m not saying its the best site on the internet, or even the best film site, but all this bile disturbs me. Aren’t we all film fans? Isn’t that why we read Dave?
    Hidden preview:
    Hidden review:

  48. SpamDooley says:

    Asshole Anghus- it has a nice ring to it.
    I did not realize you were retarded as well.
    Sorry, I will type slower for you.
    Why are cops not allowed to take “presents” from people- because they might have to arrest them someday and it is a conflict of interest.
    Why are journalists not allowed gifts from the people they are reporting on.
    Conflict of interest.
    Now you have this 500 pound pile of shit.
    Named Harry Knowles.
    He craves “pwesents” from the industry.
    Then, POS writes reviews for all to see.
    THEN, POS takes jobs from people who he is reviewing.
    The conflict of interest is clear to all except the majorly retarded like Asshole Anghus.
    Let’s tell you another story.
    McWeeney has NO problem stealing (yes, it is illegal to even have the script he reviews) scripts from unfinished films and reviewing them on the net without permission.
    But then the Scorched Planeteers last year stole his scripts- Pavlov’s and Dread. And reviewed them and mocked them as they should be mocked.
    What did unconscionable douche Moriarty do when faced with his own game? He cried to lawyers and sicced them on the site.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST will follow Drew forever.
    Harry only has a few months left- he is so fat he can’t even walk.

  49. SpamDooley says:

    I am Spam Dooley and I FEED my people!
    (Healthy stuff, not what Knowles eats.)

  50. Joe Leydon says:

    You mean, like, bran flakes?

  51. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Hey Spam(urphy), how’s that Transformers movie coming along? Xmas love from the Doc.

  52. anghus says:

    Spam. If pointing out sad, internet trolls like you makes me an asshole, then an asshole i am.
    I keep hearing your guys bitch sessions. And i’m not commenting on what projects they are working on. I’m arguing the philosophy of this mysterious ‘conflict of interest’ you keep bringing up. No one can answer the simple question: who gets hurt if Harry or Moriarty make movies for studios that have projects they might review.
    If Harry is producing a movie for paramount, and he positively reviews a paramount movie, i can understand your skepticism for that reccomendation. And it’s not like a positive AICN review can make or break a movie. History has proven that. Also, do you believe that anyone who reviews movies is somehow disqualified from trying to make movie deals in Hollywood? The type of concentrated hate that is spewed forth from guys like Spam, doesn’t come from people touting high journalistic and ethical standards. Calling people ‘asshole’ and ‘fat’ are benchmarks of sad, bitter, jealous people.
    Spam, i’m not saying i dont believe that Harry and Moriarty are not in a ‘conflict of interest’. I’m debating that the conflict of interest is something that is rather ridiculous in the entertainment industry. It’s a seedy, backstabbing industry full of ego and hubris. If there is some kind of moral standard, 99.9% of the industry isn’t aware of it. And if this imaginary rule is broken, who gets hurt?
    Who is getting hurt, other than people’s egos?
    once again, no one has addressed that question. Once you do, i’d be glad to further this discussion
    merry christmas

  53. SpamDooley says:

    Angus Mc Stupid asks
    Also, do you believe that anyone who reviews movies is somehow disqualified from trying to make movie deals in Hollywood?
    YES. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT. You cannot objectively review those you work for.
    I am Spam Dooley and I FEED My People!

  54. anghus says:

    Spam says
    “You cannot objectively review those you work for”
    so, you know they work for studios, and that their reviews aren’t objective. By your perspective, you cannot trust a review they post.
    So the worst case scenario in this “AICN conspiracy” is that a review they post might be unduly influenced.
    Is that worth all the hatred that’s posted online about them? The ‘Harry is so fat he’s gonna die’, and other hateful comments. Once again, i debate how much of this is moral outrage, and how much of it really is jealousy.
    sad. sad. sad.
    So if one day Dave Poland writes a screenplay and a studio produces it, does it invalidate his opinion on every single movie released from that studio from now until the end of time?
    merry christmas haters

  55. jeffmcm says:

    Yes, Anghus, actually it does. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but those are the rules of journalistic ethics. Any writer of integrity would cease writing about any subject as soon as potential conflicts of interest showed up. This is a matter of long-standing tradition, not just some arbitrary rules made up to diss Harry Knowles.

  56. jeffmcm says:

    Reading back further, AngHus, your arguments don’t hold up. You say that there is no need for rules covering Hollywood because ‘it’s a seedy industry’. Well, what isn’t? Politics? Business? And how did it get so seedy?
    And to answer your question ‘who gets hurt’ the answer is, anyone interested in the unbiased truth. Just that simple.

  57. David Poland says:

    Well, I have to read some of this again… didn’t realize the thread was this busy.
    But Anghus, you have AICN disease. I know you will never believe this… BUT I DO NOT CARE ABOUT AICN’S PART IN THIS. Not a little tiny bit. I don’t care that they got the film. It doesn’t matter to me.
    The isssue – as it has almost always been about the AICN game – is about the rest of the media. And in this case, The Hollywood Reporter. AICN’s notions mean nothing in the context of the rest of the media where there are clear, set rules. Kirk Honeycutt is not a radical. And the choice to review out of BNAT is signficant in that context.
    I am still waiting to finish reporting on this. Harry and Moriarty have been completely open and pleasant about having the conversation about what happened from their side. I still want to talk to Honeycutt. And then I will write more.
    But the comedic arrogance of your take on this – and the overly brutal response by some – is that it is about attacking AICN. It isn’t. Who gives a fuck? Drew and Harry should not be writing reviews, but I mention it once or twice a year and life goes on. But BNAT is fine. Mel Gibson’s behavior was bad that year and it had little to do with AICN. And the issue now is not AICN or WB, but THR.
    And my guess is that if you didn’t decide this was all about AICN, this thread would have died quietly and when the final story was told, there would be another discussion altogether… without more than a passing reference to AICN.

  58. David Poland says:

    Alex –
    You are DEAD wrong. I would be the person saying that the first act was 30 minutes too long and that talk about Titanic numbers was INSANE.
    150 degrees off, pal.

  59. David Poland says:

    Another point –
    I do think that Harry would post reviews in a balanced way. Again… not my issue… don’t much care… don’t read reviews there except on rare occasion… but this posting was not about the quality or honor of AICN, but about THR breaking new ground that is not irrelevant to people who do this for a living.

  60. David Poland says:

    My last word for tonight – I think Spam can go a little far. But yes, if I sold a screenplay to a studio – and let’s say that it died there in development – I would not write another critical word about that studio for a number of years. I have many people who regularly encourage me to start producing… but if I do, I will have to stop the column, the blog and my involvement in MCN that day. That is my set of rules because I am not arrogant enough to claim to be so far above it.
    I did not review Drew’s recent TV project because I would understandably be accused of bias if I did anything less than rave. And even without a real conflict, I am sensitive enough to get that.
    My mind is not made up about AICN. My mind is made up about journalism. And I have put myself in harms way enough times for it to be clear that I treat The New York Times – a organization which can effect my business – just as I do AICN – which cannot.
    I wish Harry the best of health and I am perfectly happy for his producing career to succeed. But he has no business playing both sides for the middle… and neither do the studios that indulge and encourage the behavior. But like a child who can only see their own situation, AICNers (not Harry… he is quite mellow in our exchanges) can’t seem to see that AICN does not live in a vacuum. But that is the truth. And if you can’t deal with that reality, we have no ground on which to base a serious discussion.

  61. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “V for Vendetta” was to have been released on or around 11/11. Warner Bros. pushed the release back because of the London bombings on 7/7.
    As for AICN? That outfit was exposed by Film Threat 5 years ago — 5 years! — as a sleazy operation. Hell, one of Harry Knowles’ contributors was grilled by the FBI for selling pre-release bootlegs! The full story is in the archive at

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