MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Lunch With David: Return To Ammo

According to a (stupid) study, sequels with numbers don’t perform as well as sequels with names, so…
The Lunch

Be Sociable, Share!

19 Responses to “Lunch With David: Return To Ammo”

  1. SpamDooley says:

    wow- the homophobe screams for cock
    That wasn’t Josie who gave you the menu- she was at the front fuming about your sense of entitlement .
    “I’m David Poland they know why I am here.” You’d think CREW would leave your name at the door with a crown, huh? But no.
    Two jokes tank and you turn to your tee shirt.
    Curmudeon Meter says – 9/10
    I am Spam Dooley and I am the Night.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    Give it a rest, please.

  3. Sam says:

    Spam, don’t you think you’ve made your point already? Is it really necessary to — your name not withstanding — spam this forum with such relentlessly gleefully condescending remarks? We get the point. Seriously. Soooo…shut the hell up? Please?

  4. David Poland says:

    You know, Spam, one thing I never considered about the blog was that someone would start making up detailed lies about me on a weekly basis and post them.
    Your homophobia thing is an opinion (a stupid one) and so what? But the rest is just a fantasy. And I have to say, I am beginning to worry about my safety. You’re really moving into what is traditionally stalker behavior.
    I actually discussed your comments with Ammo’s manager yesterday and we had a good laugh about you. The idea that I might have to start actually investigating who you are, wasting their time and my time, makes me sick to my stomach. But you are obviously at least a semi-regular there and you insist on dragging them (I don’t know who Josie is, btw) into it, which makes them party to your libel.
    I am not threatening you. But I am getting more concerned. Maybe that’s your goal. If my tires get slashed after the next taping, I guess I’ll know who it was.

  5. SpamDooley says:

    Not sure how posting on a public board is libel.
    Your homophobia is just my opinion. Based on remarks you made to me two weeks ago.
    I am glad you and Ann Marie chatted. I think your other readers see no threat from me- they think I am annoying and a nuisance. You think I am douche. And now dangerous. Okay.
    Let me get this straight- you put up a weekly diary and a place for people to comment and then you act all strange when I post my opinion?
    What would you charge me with? Definition of character?
    That said, and not because of the fact that you ARE threatening me… I am gone. I have obviously upset you in a meaningful way and never intended to do so at all. I thought you wanted insight and opinion and dialogue. You have nothing to fear from Spam except being forced to face the truth.
    I hope your other posters realize that if they ask too many questions about endgames they will end up threatened with an ass kicking or worse.
    I am Spam Dooley and I am gone.

  6. Aladdin Sane says:

    It’s defamation of character dumbass.

  7. Aladdin Sane says:

    It’s defamation of character, not definition. Unless you think Dave actually thought you were defining him, and that he was threatened by that. Either way, all I can say is, “Dumbass.”

  8. Blackcloud says:

    It seeems obvious Dave thinks Spam has no character. To be defined, defamed, or otherwise serve as a direct object for a transitive verb.

  9. Eric says:

    I thought the definition of character thing was kind of a clever play on words.

  10. David Poland says:

    You can opine all you like about me, Spam. But making lies up and claiming them as fact is unacceptable. Giving you a forum to print those is problematic to me in a way it could not be to any of the commenters. And banning you would be allowing you to force me to take action that I have not wanted to take on this blog, ever.
    I have no concern about your opinions or your attempts to stir shit. But if I were to publish “Studio Exec X says Producer Y is a lying cunt and stole money from the budget of Film Z,” that would be quite different than writing, “Publisher Y is a jerk.” Especially if I made up everything but the names. And that is the line you crossed, Spam.

  11. David Poland says:

    I thought it was clever too, Eric. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy having Spam around when he’s on his meds.

  12. Wrecktum says:

    Who hates Poland more, Spam Dooley or Kevin Smith?

  13. jeffmcm says:

    Hooray! And you didn’t even have to give him a phone call, David.
    I wonder if there’ll be a new poster in the near future calling himself FlanHannigan.

  14. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    I miss Spam already. Like I miss my cancer.
    Dave I think this was your worst piece yet, yes I know these are just fun diversions but do you think you can keep them focused a bit more. There were subject jumps like a cricket on a hotplate. And it doesn’t hurt to have a point to monologues at the end of the day, otherwise its better known as rambling.

  15. Aladdin Sane says:

    Weird, I don’t know why it double posted. I was halfway through writing it and the page refreshed, so I fleshed out the post. But the first post never appeared. Oh well, c’est la vie.

  16. EDouglas says:

    Spam, this isn’t a public board…this is David’s blog. He has a right to outright ban you for less than some of the crap you’ve posted here, and I’m sure plenty of people would be much happier without your ridiculous posts.

  17. EDouglas says:

    BTW, I think someone should produce a movie where David crosses the country talking about Oscars and the biz to anyone he meets and then it’s filmed to get their reaction.

  18. Cadavra says:

    Don’t worry about Spam. He can simply go back to his old job making mendacious campaign commercials for Republicans.

  19. I have nothing to say.
    (that is all)

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