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
(completely off topic)
Who’s seen the trailer for Fur? I was impressed. Looks to be wonderfully obscure and bizarre but really well-made. I am not, however, seeing an Oscar nod for Kidman in the future for this role. Seems like it could be too weird a mix of comedy and bizarre for the Academy.
Speaking of gossip though, have you heard about the new beachfront property that Lindsay Lohan’s boyfriend just purchased. omg and that WEDDING RING! ooh la la…
š
I haven’t seen the trailer yet. Not sure how much interest I would have in the movie overall, but Carter Burwell is doing the score, and I love that guy, so that’s something.
I uh, have no juicy gossip tidbit to add though. Well, I did see Eric Bogosian on the street the other day. I would’ve asked him if he had plans to appear in Under Siege 3, but he was walking in the other direction pretty fast.
Is Finke reporting gossip? “I’m told David Geffen is telling pals he did call up Sumner Redstone this morning and did suggest that the Viacom octogenarian hire Jeffrey Katzenberg to run the whole she-bang.”
And ooh, grrr, my blogger hearthrobe Tully is featured in The Reeler talking about ping pong.
Next thing you know they’ll be meeting with these Hollywood insiders in underground parking lots for fear of exposure.
They do already. Hollywood execs are nothing if not conspiratorial.
David Faber on CNBC said that he told Redstone that he should hire Katzenberg and Redstone replied that Geffen had alread made the suggestion so I guess it couldbe true.
As for this whole affair, it is about MTV Networks and broader Viacom strategy not Paramount. Paramount is just 5% of cash flow and even if it boomed wouldn’t be important to Wall Street.
Sumner remains and has always been obsessed with hsi stock price. He thinks that Freston wasn’t agressive enough on MySpace and lost it to News. News has been a good stock so Sumner blames Freston. Of course, DIS doesn’t have anythng close to MySpace and it has been a good stock.
The problem with these traditional media companies is that they continually view the web as extensions of their current business. Can anyone name a single major bradn on the net that was moved from the offline world? And watch news ruin MySpace by “monetizining it” the kids will be onto somehting else in a few years and then Sumner will fire another CEO and say how smart he was for not overpaying for MySpace.
The guy is a poor leader for a public company. He made big money for sharehlders once, when he devleveraged and caught a multiple expansion in the net bubble. He needs to accept the reality that he is owner of an asset that at best grows its cash flow 10% per year. Once he does that he can set the capital structure appropriately and the stock price will reflect reality instead of inflated expectations. Then he should hire Poland to run things.
>>>Can anyone name a single major bradn on the net that was moved from the offline world?
ESPN.com
Why all the anonymous quotes? The New York Times is a mouthpiece for the US ruling class. This “Newspaper of Record” tailors its content to please the rich and powerful.
The Times was fed US government fantasies about Iraq and printed them as news so the US government could start a bloody war of occupation in Iraq. Last I heard that war was not going so swimmingly.
At least the Washington Post is more open about its role as a mouthpiece for the US government.
Chucky 90% of the major daily newspapers supported Bush vs Clinton in 1992 and in later elections it was a bit less but still in that ballpark, but that isn;t news that major dailies support very corporate interests. When have they not? They were guing ho for Vietnam too from what I read.
However, historically, those same papers hired some very good honest Real journalists. I think the difference now is that there are fewer properly trained (including in ethics) journalists. This is the problem.
Rupert Murdoch interferes in a major way with editorial decisions [Sam Kiley, one of the best reporters in the field (in Rwanda where he was shot at point blank range and survived, after recup he was redeployed to Israel) resigned in protest since Murdoch was editing out Palestinian casualties and Israeli army-caused civilian deaths, London Times, for example].
Nothing is new except fewer great honest reporters and reduction in power of the Editors.
Both of these changes which I see as very negative for the world of journalistic integrity do effect how sources are willing to reveal themselves. I don;t blame sources for being anonymous–many great stories start from an anonymous tip-off.
I have been a source to stories appearing in the major dailies and I would never allow myself to be ID-ed. I’ve been blacklisted from enough jobs. I DO expect the reporter to confirm what I have said, as is His/Her job.
With the drop in journalistic integrity some reporters are not independently verifying source material which means there is more gossip and hearsay, and less facts in any story in this country and many others.
They are all corporate mouthpieces and never have been any different–it’s the writers that have changed.