Some days, I just have to shake my head and wonder, do John Horn and Patrick Goldstein, two normally honorable men who have sincere concerns about the quality of the newspaper they work for, have the balls to speak to their bosses about a huge misstep like the new
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
Wow.
That is a horrible idea.
Way for mainstream media to fuck with the creative process.
Congratulations LA Times, you just receded to a class beneath AICN.
For once, I agree with you wholeheartedly, David. I’ve never been into the idea of reviewing scripts, because I think it’s a slight to the creative people…actors, directors, DPs, production designers… who will take that script and change it into something tangible and real. Movies should be judged by what’s on screen, not what’s on paper months before the movie is even made. I think this is a HUGE mistep by the L.A. Times and I do hope that the studios react to this the same way they do when internet fansites put up script reviews.
the entire development process sucks already, this is just going in a worse direction. and I guess the most obvious question is what the f*ck will those “journalists” know about it anyway unless they are fishing for jobbing for re-writes?! Why be smug about scriptwriters–they already have nearly zilch power as it is, now they are to be tortured in public?
and how much would I want to see a movie where I had it all spoiled for me a year ahead of time? Forget it…this has to be the dumbest idea, financially and morally, of the decade.
They should call it the *Studio Money loser* column. It will be.
What an absolutely useless column and what an insanely smug prick. This is a joke.
Several years ago, a publicist for an indie production company accidentally mailed me a script for a film that had yet to begin shooting. When I opened the envelope, my first thoght was: Gee! I didn’t know Director X had already finished another movie! (Then as now, I would occasionally get screenplays along with other publicity material for soon-to-be-released films.) My second thought: Wait a minute! I freakin’ KNOW he hasn’t had time to make another movie. So I called the publicist. And, well, all I can say is: Have you ever HEARD someone turn pale? She asked for me to please not read the script, and to PLEASE mail it back to her. So I didn’t, and I did. i didn’t think I was doing anything extraordinarily honorable. I thought I was being a professional.
Times change, I guess.
I am not saying that I agree with the column and I fully understand why so many would be upset by it. Nevertheless, I also understand its appeal.
Film culture has become so mainstream since VHS that I think more and more people want to understand how and why movies are made/developed in an effort to demythologize them.
I am not saying this column is so sophisticated that it can do that, but it does seem to be a logical extension of a celebrity/film industry obsessed culture.
Film is still a new medium historically speaking and as such it is still an art form that is far from being democratic; but more people want to be a part of it now than ever. I think that is in large part the appeal of reality television. We can’t all be the next Russell Crowe but at least if ever so briefly we can pretend to drink from his well.
That is also the appeal of the AICN culture to younger people. It makes you feel like you are a part of the process and much like downloading, once the genie is out of the bottle it can never be put back in.
It can only morph into something else.
I think the only word to describe reading this column is indignation. It’s wrong on many levels…the fact that the writer revels in his wrongness, the fact that it’s in the LA Times, the fact that it concerns a writer whose delicate process just got slapped.
I guess it’s their new motto: If you can’t beat ’em, make your standards lower than theirs.
I agree with the column, but isn’t this alot like those magazines and shows that rank sports teams based on what they did in the offseason? It’s all speculation and everyone loooves to speculate.
EDouglas hit it right on the ehad though, a script can suck or be great based on directors, actors, cameramen. The whole column seems beneath a “big” newspaper.
This is a really cool suggestion on your part DP and should absolutely be something the WGA gets involved with in service to its members, immediately. I’d put it’s priority as high as organizing reality writers — it’s that important.
I wonder where we might be able to read Mr. Fernandez’s scripts (and not just his Premiere preview piece of GRUDGE 2). Perhaps there’s an unfinished novel he could pull the pages of from the bottom of that Trader Joe’s sack in the corner? The world awaits…
Good grief, what the hell is wrong with you people? Starting with DP, and moving down through just about everyone else here. So they’re writing a column on unproduced screenplays. Big deal. The analogy that people are using about scripts being blueprings and all that horseshit is just wrong and a disrespect to writers. A good screenplay stands on its own as a work of art. Why do you think they publish screenplays and sell them in bookstores? Maybe you think it’s wrong to spoil a movie before it’s been made…so then don’t read the column. But y’all are making WAY too big a deal about this…
yes, must agree. not exactly journalism. the scripts aren’t even reviewed — not really. their quality is described in a generally way, but there is no analysis of structure, story, etc. fernandez tells us how he feels, and the definition of difficult words, and what the poster for the movie might look like. this is journalism? no. it’s blogging. he talks about screenplays without saying anything of substance — a classic blog technique found daily on a million throwaway sites.
if lat wants to publish this sort of thing they should (at least) do it in a reporter’s blog — a sort of sidebar, not under the lat logo. (of course, lat may consider calendarlive to be such a sidebar).
most papers now have a hollywood gossip (or fluff) section on their sites to boost (or maintain) readership. but for lat to have to stoop to this level (considering they are located in los angeles and are surrounded by the people who actually make hollywood news) is sad.
but, lat is not to blame. really — how many people under 40 can tell you what the president is up to these days? or have read a piece of classic literature in the last 12 months? or can name a supreme court justice and tell you what their political leanings are? lat is just trying to keep up with the demands of the public – and, generally, it demands fluff.
we live in a point and click world of increasing sub-literacy. this blogesque quasi-reportage is simply a sign of the times. sad as it may be one wonders how far down this slippery slope journalism will have slid in another ten years.
lat may have made a pact with the devil in order to keep readers — but they are not getting readers of news, they are getting skimmers, doodlers, point and clickers — those who tool around the web. what will they do if this column gets lots of hits? give us the latest ‘who’s dating who’ gossip? probably. but that, increasingly, is what people want.
alas, this is just the beginning — a beginning that has been well under way for at least 20 years. the real question is: why is this happening and what are we going to do about it?
fernandez says he feels sick to his stomach. so should the editors of the los angeles times, and so should we.
Yeah guys, that’s why ALL those great screenplays go unproduced. I’m a screenwriter and I recognize my role…it’s a team venture.