May 6, 2024
The Hot Blog
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"]
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
Well said.
Well, to be fair, a lot of the complainants tossing logs into this fire are complaining that these movies are very similarly plotted. Even (and especially) biz unsavvy folks noted the whole Madagascar/The Wild thing, and since then there hasn’t been any relief from the domesticated-animals- in-the-wild plot, except to reverse it (Over the Hedge). Yeah, Boucher is whining about the convention and not the storyline, but a lot of writers understand, I think, the importance of anthropomorphic animals in animation and were really slagging moviemakers for narrow story choices.
Isn’t calling all these movies similar just basically saying that it is its own genre? So much effort here is being made to be snarky that it overlooks the basic idea that this is (and has been for a long time) a type of animated film that studios like to make, which audiences can reliable expect to have certain qualities.
I think the complaint is that so many are coming at once that it’s hard for the average movie-goer to really get attached to one through advertising.
It’s like when you used to see an ad for one ripoff of Friends and think, “Maybe I’ll watch that.” And then you see two more for two different shows that look just like Friends, and you say, “Well, screw it, now I don’t want to watch any of them.”
Reviews and word-of-mouth will help people find which are the good ones and which ones weren’t worth watching in the first place.
As for critics saying “no more talking animal cgi,” if you want an honest review, why are you looking to them in the first place? It’d be like the complaints some horror fans have with Dave’s reviews of horror movies. Know your critics and know their biases.
“I think the complaint is that so many are coming at once that it’s hard for the average movie-goer to really get attached to one through advertising.”
I see your point…the market is getting saturated.
“After a steady diet of cute talking animal movies, isn’t it time to mix it up a bit? ”
This is the fallacy of the article, that we somehow need the genre to be groundbreaking rather than just good variations on the theme. For the record, it is being mixed up…look out for some in 2007.
I think there are some clear variations right now. It’s hard to mistake Flushed Away from anything else in the marketplace. And Happy Feet is starting to break out.
But if I hadn’t seen ads for Over the Hedge and gone to see it before Open Season came out, I never would have been able to tell those two apart solely from 30 second ads or the trailers.
“But if I hadn’t seen ads for Over the Hedge and gone to see it before Open Season came out, I never would have been able to tell those two apart solely from 30 second ads or the trailers.”
I totally agree (I’ve mistaken one for the other in conversation), but can the same not be said for any number of horror movies, romantic comedies, suspense thrillers, etc. released in any given year?
Yeah, we’re in complete agreement that it is a genre, but that as a developing genre and needs to start finding ways to set individual films apart and not solely rely on the ideas of cgi and talking animals to sell the movie.
Which is also what Dave is saying, I think.
Part of the complaint with the current run of talking-animal cartoons is the insistence of putting them in the HUMAN world, rather than in their anthropomorphic own. The Disney cabal of characters were very much on their own (Mickey had a fucking dog for a pet) and seemed to safely keep their distance from humanity. And yes, I realize the WB characters featured humans (Yosemite Sam, Elmer Fudd), but they were characters, not generic (and oftentimes faceless) stand-ins for the Bad Guy.I for one am immensely looking forward to HAPPY FEET, but will be sorely disappointed if the evil humans tread foot in Antarctica in the third act, further adding to boring man vs. nature plotline so many of these things want to offer lately.
Dave, I think you’re missing the point. The point is not the rash of talking animal movies, but the rash of “talking animal slapstick comedies about animals that have crazy misadventures when they run afoul of human societies.”
The point is that “too many talking animal movies” makes a way more manageable headline. Then you read the actual article to get to the fine points.
You’re right that it’s unfair to include Happy Feet in the list, but I think if we hadn’t had Madagascar AND The Wild AND Over the Hedge AND Open Season AND Barnyard, nobody would be complaining.
Yeah, it’s the movies stupid. And the movies are far too much the same same same and same.
Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse, however, aren’t anything alike.
i understand poland’s point, but i think the real complaint is about the type and tenor of the talking animal pics. they aren’t bambi, for cryin out loud. the majority have a snide, ironic, sarcastic, uber chatty obnoxiousness that gets old fast. they try desperately for wit, but it doesn’t work. and the result is a bit exhausting to watch. these aren’t the work of chuck jones…who was a genius. DOOGLE, MADAGASCAR and the like aren’t genius.