Since Mr. Redstone has the world chasing its own tail and taking this all very personally, I thought I would add this bit of clarity…
Though some would like to throw Steven Spielberg & DreamWorks into this fracas, word has it that not only wasn’t Mr. S. part of this decision making process, he was traveling when it all went down and found out about it when most people did… from TV coverage of Sumner’s quote in the Wall Street Journal.
I don’t foresee Cruise
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
I agree. C/W was not fired, as many headlines are stating. They were up for renegotiation of their contract, and they decided not to take the new deal at Paramount. And left. For Redstone to publically make it seem otherwise silly.
For something “Not Terribly Interesting” to you, you sure do like talking about this.
Wrecktum, this is very interesting because it effects what you will be watching in theatres, and you did not read DP’s Rule of Thumb #9. There Are Things I Know And Things I Don’t Know And Sometimes They Change.
The dialog D.P. came up with is hilarious. D – did you see the nonsense of Michael Wolff on CNBC as, what else, a CNBC Contributor and VF Columnist, with the cool toned, pink, pale and blond-in-black Marr interviewed by Sue Herrera? What qualifies Wolff to speak, and speak and interupt on this?
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0000-Lb2bxoSk0vj0Zm0pR%7ci5gb5fCIR2n6_R-z3qgv0SJNERBuT0zpJ49voHgFuGw0mWP.html?mod=ARTICLE_VIDEO
Just remembered how much these Michael Wolff-type New York media-observing guys never get Hollywood right.
Give DP credit for not writing ‘this is the last time I will post on this subject’ on five consecutive posts.
Wow… hadn’t seen that… Michael Wolff really doesn’t know shit.
It was funny how Wolff was commenting on Redstone giving quotes to a reporter when you had that very reporter in dialogue with you. First he interrupts her by misinterpreting the difference between discretionary fund and getting paid for a movie. Second he interrupts her by saying a $400 million movie cannot possible lose money, which even if that’s true, it doesn’t take into account the money they consider “lost” because people stayed away from seeing a Cruise movie.
Shouldn’t the headline be “Cruise-ifiction”?
I just have a feeling that Mr Cruise will be mighty alright in the long term. What company doesn’t want to go into business with him? He’s a cash cow.
If by cash cow you mean ‘cow that eats a lot of cash’ you’re right.
Redstone is a powerful old man who feels he’s earned the right to shoot off his mouth without pussyfooting. He’s opinionated, he doesn’t listen to things unless they interest and agree with him, and he’s being analyzed by people who don’t understand the movie business or Redstone.
Cruise has been acting much the same the past couple of years, but at 44, there’s no age excuse.
Par dropped Cruise-Wagner in July — it was in a UK paper at the time and I mentioned it in passing in another thread. The Liberal Media didn’t bite for the story until Par’s chairman opened his mouth.
All too typical of the Liberal Media, relying mostly on official sources. That’s to keep the Liberal Media from writing about:
(1) Par’s awful summer — their 2 most hyped pictures stiffed.
(2) Par using a right-wing outfit to promote “World Trade Center”. For that reason I will not see the movie.
(3) Par’s chairman signing his name to a “Muslims = Terrorists” advert — just as Israel lost a war.
Chucky… without biting on the hyperbole…
a) Gossip on Cruise has been non-stop… Paramount did not dump him in July… they were negotiating two weeks ago.
1) There is a line within Paramount about this summer. Nacho and WTC were “the new regime’s.” The rest weren’t. Doesn’t help the stockholder. But it is how things are seen.
2) The idea that a studio can’t sell a movie to all people and that selling to one of the many groups they are selling to is reported as news borders on pc/fascism. Where are all the stories on movies sold to blacks, jews, or women? (Rhetorical question… the answer is, “unwritten,” which is where these “they’re selling to the right” stories should be. I was offended by how Gibson did it on The Passion because I thought it was actively divisive. But this case was not. Nor was DaVinci. Nor are the others the NYT isn’t drooling over.)
3. A political football… yes…
Chucky, if you want to consider yourself any kind of cinematically informed person, you have an obligation to see World Trade Center, in theaters or on video, if for no other reason than to see what kind of movie would be as praised as it was in certain circles. To avoid it as you say you are is to reinforce self-ignorance.
I’d be curious to know from Chucky how he travels from place to place; if he’s as principled in all his economic decisions, clearly he doesn’t use any petroleum products.
I am a big Oliver Stone fan, but I do not want to see World Trade Center. I am still “cinematically informed.”
But are you simply uninterested in seeing it, or are you actively boycotting it because you don’t care for one of its marketing companies? I don’t think the movie is very interesting, but I find this to be a really pretentious attitude.
I really wish Chucky would ever stay and discuss any of these issues instead of just leaving hit and run posts.
I really wish Chucky would ever stay and discuss any of these issues instead of just leaving hit and run posts.
He doesn’t stick around to discuss the issues he brings up because he is unable to.
Hey guys, any of you seen Aurora Borealis? Really amazing film with Donald Sutherland and Josh Jackson! I LOVED it!
Mag