MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Lunch With David – Atonement Day Is Coming!

Here It Is

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “Lunch With David – Atonement Day Is Coming!”

  1. T.H.Ung says:

    You’ve really outdone yourself with the laws and sins of Hollywood. Beneath the sunny skys and shiny cars, it’s hell on earth and hard to respect anyone. My two years with a low level offender are fast approaching, I feel like I’ve done time and the parole board is about to spring me.

  2. SpamDooley says:

    Okay at the risk of irritating, here we go again. Not funny or clever enough. Lots of time and effort spent shooting and editing. Summary of sins doesn’t even make sense. Sin of omission- David’s jealousy that Jeff Robinov still has his job, which reflects David’s ignorance of the cyclical nature of the business. Jealousy also a sin. Waste of time and tape. A sin.
    Will I get an answer about what the endgame is for these things?
    I am Spam Dooley and I am banned by Jeff Welles for telling the truth like he is banned by Columbia for making up test screenings.

  3. T.H.Ung says:

    It’s one take. Load, trim heads and tails, uplink and post. The proof is in the prep.

  4. palmtree says:

    About a dozen stick puppet movies just got fast-tracked at the majors.

  5. David Poland says:

    No, Spam, you won’t. No reason to give you one. But thanks for playing. And we all look forward to your repeating yourself next week.

  6. You’re SO guilty of the unreturned call sin my friend.

  7. T.H.Ung says:

    You forgot the sin of willful phone tag, the art of appearing last to any assembly of personage greater than one not involving a fake business meal and using ignorance to one’s advantage.

  8. Me says:

    I think Dave’s just trying to get used to appearing on camera. It can be daunting, but more practice makes for better presence.
    While this is the first one of these I’ve watched, it’d be nice to see Dave take someone out to lunch, so he’d be interracting rather than just talking. It’d be interesting to see some debate over the sins of Hollywood.

  9. lazarus says:

    Yeah but then it would be ripping off Dinner for Five. What’s different about this is that it’s one man’s opinion, and you never actually get to see him eat.
    What the hell is Spam talking about when he says “a lot of time shooting and edition”? Save for the use of the location, it doesn’t get any more low budget and off the cuff. One shot, one take, 5 minutes.
    I don’t remember DP ever saying he was attempting to be funny or even entertaining. It’s someone with a tri-weekly column and blog giving his readers a usually lighthearted audio-visual extra of speaking his mind. No false advertising or high-hope dashing involved. What’s wrong, not enough titty for you?
    For a troll, you’re the one who’s not nearly funny or clever enough. Take a week or two off and work on your material.

  10. Eric says:

    “What’s wrong, not enough titty for you?”
    What a fantastic question. I will be insinuating this into every conversation I possibly can for the next month.

  11. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Keep em coming I say. They’re like saltpeter to the ladies. No seriously, they’re fun and frothy and I’m sure Dave isn’t angling to be a inudtsry mousketeer with Bart down the line.
    Can I just confirm how whack Dave is for thinking Cohen will get nominated for Borat… what? is Jimmy Glick not in the running?
    Everyone thinks Phillips walked off Borat because he was in fear for his life after the rodeo? You mean the guy who set up the NY Underground fest, hung out with GG Allin, got beaten up by Fratboys, pranked all the time… yeah okay. Perhaps the obvious reason was Cohen’s insistence on the inclusion of the Pam Anderson storyline which most will agree really hurts the film. There was no need for such a used and tired old invention. Without it the film could have become a classic. Oh boy.. I am still hurting from the bedroom scene.. which is hairific to say the least.

  12. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    sorry I tried to write SPOILER but it disappeared !

  13. T.H.Ung says:

    Notice how you always arrive first and tilt your eyes up from your reading material as he sits down?

  14. TJFar67 says:

    They had to hire Larry Charles to finish Borat because Todd Philips didn’t like using “such a used and tired old invention”. Who did they hire to finish every other film Todd Philips made?

  15. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    i’m no Philips apologist – Starsky and Hutch is completely dire – however the P…… A…… storyline should have been jettisoned in favour of something original. Wait to see you see Borat and then you’ll understand where I’m coming from. It’s not the only misstep for the film – Cohen’s targets are mostly too obvious and predictable. He’s fearless but too often he takes the easy route. Still a very funny movie in parts but strangely not as biting or as clever as some of the Borat encounters on the original show.

  16. SpamDooley says:

    According to Tamara the producer of these video segments the total man hours ranges between 12-15. David composes this as a script. A four person crew films it. Two people edit it and add music. SERIOUS effort is put into this, with no potential financial or creative upside. But I am accused of being a dick gathering information to hurt him because I say this. Go figure.
    “Thank you for playing?” Are you stuck in 1992 or something? And while I am sharing my insights, how come every one one of these vblogs is filled with so much kvetching and negativity? Do you have a companion in life? Is everything so bad that you need to go to that much effort just to complain? You will probably mock my sincerity, but the more research I do the more I feel I know you and it makes me what to cry.
    I am Spam Dooley and Jeff Welles never went to that Columbia test screening!

  17. David Poland says:

    Spam, you are now officially, incontrovertably lying.
    You may know enough to know who Tamara is and you may know the cameraman, but your explanation of what goes into these segments is otherwise 100% inaccurate, which makes it clear that you have spoken to neither Tamara or David about the actual process.
    If you want to appear to be an authority, it is probably not a good idea to make shit up. It exposes your ignorance and your desperation to appear to know more than you do.
    Your opinion may be irrelevant to me, but making up lies is really beyond reasonable.

  18. SpamDooley says:

    I am making up lies about your video blog process.
    What do I gain by doing that?
    Oh, right, you don’t answer questions about gains or not.
    People can believe what they want. I don’t give a turd about whether you spend two minutes or two days on these things.
    Why are they so dark and dour? Is your life that sad?
    What is the endgame of spending ANY time on them?
    I am Spam Dooley and I whistle down the wind!

  19. David Poland says:

    I have no idea what you gain by it, Spam. But you are doing it.
    The more you write, the more you appear to be 19, interning at Crew, and stuck in classes at USC Cinema Studies that you don’t understand.
    You were more fun when you seemed to be Don Murphy. But Don isn’t anywhere near this lame, even when he is raving.
    And by the way, Jeff Wells’ current issues at Sony have nothing at all to do with the Last Action Hero incident. It was a long ago administration and the incident is a faded memory. He can get himself in plenty of trouble this week, this month, and this year without that. But if you really want to keep carping on that, write about the whole story, push “post” and get over it. Wells is a sad, angry man, but your “look at what I know” game is a bore already. We know… we know!!!
    You are Spam Dooley and you whistle Dixie up your own ass.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Spam, it’s very ironic that you would spend so much time questioning the purpose of David’s videos, when your own postings seem to have so little point.

  21. SpamDooley says:

    My current posts only have one point- to get an answer to why the Vblogs. I am not anti David or pro David. I SUSPECT there is a very good reason why he is doing it. If he would share that reason maybe I could grow as a person. It is Poland who reads the negativity into my postings. Defensive much?
    I recall being accused of being some hack producer of B movies before. Was that Murphy? In any case, I am no such thing. I respect myself too much to be the man, much less work for him. I make a good point, I pick up a child and we head to the desert and we kill whoever gets in the way. That is the way of Dooley.
    As far as Welles is concerned- the freak made a post which was him boo hooing that he wasn’t allowed into some screenings. I posted that he doesn’t really matter. You don’t either David. Nor does Spam. TRUTH IS, in the end, as Snakes up My Dress showed, the whole internet still doesn’t matter.
    Welles response was to ban me.
    So no, thanks for the advice, but I know he reads this and I want to annoy him.
    I am Spam Dooley and I kill coppers.

  22. Cadavra says:

    You are Spam Dooley and you can’t even bother to spell Wells’ name correctly, even though everyone else does.
    I am Cadavra and you’re giving me a headache.

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