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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
LOL. I guess the Times thinks sinking ships sell but rising tides do not. Who wants to read that rich Hollywood studios are doing well? We want to hear about boardroom bloodbaths, executive head-chopping and preening stars losing their backend. Don’t give us this “strong sudio growth” BS. We want budget slashing and weeping studio heads!!
They need more column inches to inspect Hilary Clinton’s knickers.
For whatever it is worth, the NYT also did not report on any of the positive BO for The Passion as I seem to recall.
DaVinci is a hit but I think a lot of the curiosity on a media level now has dwindled.
It is performing at the level of a huge summer blockbuster but not at the level of a meta-blockbuster such as a LOTR, Spiderman, Pirates, Passion etc. (at least in domestic)
Hence, some of the reporting falling off is somewhat expected with X-3 around the pike.
I would say, if you are going to write about the “mysterious missing screnings,” you are responsible to write about the success that comes as a result… or doesn’t… but do the story.
Same with “The Slump.” If you are going to write weekly abuot how bad things are, the message when things improve is only fair. To only write box office when things sucks, sucks.
Writing about the one cat in the tree is more interesting than the twenty cats on the ground. That’s how all of journalism works.
In fact, if DVC had found huge, record-breaking success, they surely would have written about it. But they’re only going to publish a story when something is out of the ordinary, and DVC’s big-but-not-unprecedented opening was expected by everyone.
…well, almost everyone. š
They need more column inches to inspect Hilary Clinton’s knickers.
Or more space to run the latest U.S. government fantasies about Iran.
DVC’s big-but-not-unprecedented opening was expected by everyone.
The Newark Star-Ledger had such a story on Monday. Their resident Film Snob wrote the piece and used only one source (the industry hack who’s always quoted by AP).