MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

300 Spoiler Thread

You asked for it…. you got it…
Personally, I don’t think the movie can be spoiled, as it has a brain no larger than a head of a pin…. all groiin all the time…. but I guess a third act is a third act… and box office is box office….

Be Sociable, Share!

50 Responses to “300 Spoiler Thread”

  1. 555 says:

    one of ’em lives.
    seriously, this is movie is fairly spoilerproof, I guess except for when Gorgo stabs the guy (Theron?) in the senate chamber, cause that’s not in the book.
    how about a 70 million dollar weekend. Not bad. not bad at all.

  2. Blackcloud says:

    Yeah, it’s probably more accurate to call it a discussion thread since, as I jibed in the other thread, the only thing this movie can spoil is the audience’s intelligence. But since I asked for it, I’ll go . . .
    I suppose you have to admire the courage of a movie that argues Hitler was right. It’s not something you see every day. If Ephialtes’ parents had done their Spartan duty and allowed him to be discarded, he would not have betrayed Leonidas and the 300. Moral: exterminate the weakest members of society and it won’t be stabbed in the back by its least members.
    I’m not sure what to make of the history; it’s as though they went out of their way to get stuff either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Several of Gorgo’s lines (“with your shield or on it,” “only Spartan women give birth . . .”) are attested sayings of Spartan women. The thing about fighting in the shade was also true. On the other hand, making the Ephors a bunch of lecherous degenerates was ridiculous. They were the elected executive body of Sparta, not priests of the old gods. The real prophecy was that either Sparta must fall or a king must die. Sticking to that truth would have worked much better with the themes of duty and sacrifice they were going for.
    The depiction of the agoge is correct, except for two things: 1) the heir presumptive would not have undergone it; 2) they didn’t hunt wolves, they hunted their slaves, the helots. Let’s see how much sympathy that would get from the audience.
    Gorgo was Leonidas’ niece, the daughter of his brother, King Cleomenes I. Boy loving isn’t so bad then, is it? (Although the Spartans did plenty of that, too.) And having Theron accuse Gorgo of adultery is about the stupidest thing imaginable. As the Spartans liked to brag, there was no adultery in Sparta? Why? Because they positively encouraged wife-swapping. You need to get babies from somewhere if you’re discarding some of them. Once you’ve found good breeding stock you use it until it’s exhausted.
    So much for the history. As for the movie itself, I dispute David’s claim that it’s a video game movie. It’s a cartoon movie, man, get it straight. It looks like a cartoon, and it has the sensibility of a cartoon. It’s cartonish. The characters are caricatures. It does give you a good idea that a Spartan without a sword is pretty much useless, but acknowledging that would subvert the filmmakers’ purpose.
    The portrait of the Persians has been ripped apart elsewhere. The most I could gather was that the chains Leonidas feared most were the ones around Xerxes’ body.
    The battles were tedious, repetitive, and staged. The death of the captain’s son was unintentionally hilarious, both in its predictability and in its overwrought emotion. I can’t count how many fetishes were going on there. There was no consequence to any of the attacks. Limbs were hacked, blood spurted, heads rolled, the Spartans shouted. Rinse and repeat. And when the elephants came, I turned to my companions and wondered, “When did this turn into Lord of the Rings?”
    The Gorgo-Theron subplot: the only plausible reason for that has to be that they viewed a rough cut that was only battle sequences and decided they needed at least a few minutes every once in a while to wipe off the blood that was squirting on them from the screen.
    The movie works best as comedy, as a parody of all the fanboy stuff that’s come out the last decade: the slow-mo, the endless, inconsequential violence, the shouting, the plasticized, stylized aesthetic. I expect that was not the intention.
    To those who resort to that old canard, “It’s just a comic book movie,” so’s Batman Begins. 300 is not an adaptation. It’s a recreation, a direct translation from page to screen. In that endeavor it’s a total success, for the movie is as flat and 2-dimensional as its progenitor.
    300 has no wit, no verve, and no humanity. It is nasty, brutish, and long. But worst of all, it’s merely bad. It’s not nearly the disaster I was expecting. It’s not so-bad-it’s good. It’s just bad. It can be discarded, like a defective Spartan baby or rubbish. Absolute rubbish. That’s all it is. Purely, eminently disposable.

  3. Blackcloud says:

    Oh, and what the hell was the deal with Leonidas’ Jesus Christ pose at the end? I haven’t seen that discussed anywhere.

  4. Tofu says:

    The president of Iran’s Art Affairs Advisory expressed strong condemnation over the movie which he said insults the Persian civilization. Shamqadri called the film’s effort fruitless however, saying, “values in Iranian culture and the Islamic Revolution are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans.”
    Funny. Without the Battle of Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea, both Democracy & Islam would have been under great threat, if not extinction. I suppose they were just insulted by the caricatures.

  5. 555 says:

    This isn’t Kingdom of Heaven. Any harping about historical inaccuracy seem to ignore the blatant narrative device of 300, which is Stelios telling the story to the Greek Army before a battle to pump ’em up. why would the enemy be painted in any sort of favorable light before going into a battle? “They’re not bad guys, but let’s go fight ’em anyway!”
    and inconsequential violence? really? were you watching between your fingers?

  6. Devin Faraci says:

    Dave, you look like Jambi from Pee Wee’s Playhouse in the 300 review video. Mekka-lekka hi mekka hiney ho!

  7. Ju-osh says:

    555’s right. 300 is clearly not intended to be a history lesson. Or there wouldn’t have been ogres and mutant rhinos in it, would there? That said, it’s a surprisingly empty, unimaginative film. Perhaps a few historical storylines might’ve spaced out the action sequences a bit better. Or maybe they could’ve at least made the Spartans fight in ways that were unique to each opponent. Hell, you can’t even beat the first Street Fighter game using the same punch-kick combo on every level.
    The sole appeal of 300 seems to be the stylish battles, right? Yet there are at least a half a dozen direct to dvd releases each week featuring similarly ‘historic’ characters doing cg battle against overacting baddies and sub-LOTR monsters. (Check out Gerard Butler’s low budget, full length audition for 300, Atila, if you’re still jonesing for more) Blockbuster ought to place these titles on a higher shelf if the viewing audience is this hungry for them.

  8. Crow T Robot says:

    The guy behind the “Dawn of The Dead” remake joins the A-list of Hollywood directors this weekend.
    This is much cause for celebration.

  9. Aladdin Sane says:

    Heaven forbid that anyone have 2 hours of fun at the cinema these days. I’m gonna bet that after the onslaught of sequels that is coming this summer, in the rearview, 300 will hold up reasonably well.
    Blackcloud, I noticed the Christ pose too. I haven’t read the graphic novel yet, so I’m wondering if it was in there too.
    The movie was pretty funny – sometimes I was laughing more than everyone else…and I loved it, in spite of itself. I’d see it again. Especially in IMAX.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    “Without the Battle of Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea, both Democracy & Islam would have been under great threat, if not extinction. I suppose they were just insulted by the caricatures.”
    Not sure how this is possible since Islam developed over a thousand years after these battles.

  11. Tofu says:

    Leonidas is not in the Christ position in the book, sporting more of an outstretched “A” with his arms twisted differently from each other, and his legs awkwardly bent sideways. To the movie’s credit, the decision have him facing upwards, eyes open, was far more haunting than the book, with his head on its side, eyes closed.
    Re-reading the book, the movie is far more true to many shots, dialogue, and plot points than I had remembered. The only aspect missing are the vast numbers, leading to greater chaos in the book’s battles, and the excellent usage of silhouette work.
    One other cute addition to the movie is the final line from Leonidas to Ephialtes: “I hope you live forever.” While sounding like a wishing well to the hunchback, it actually also works as an insult, as all true Spartans wish to die in battle.

  12. grandcosmo says:

    >>>Heaven forbid that anyone have 2 hours of fun at the cinema these days.
    Sure but the movies themselves have to be fun.

  13. Tofu says:

    “Not sure how this is possible since Islam developed over a thousand years after these battles.
    Exactly. It has been argued that Zoroastrianism would have become an even greater force with the new Persian empire, changing how religion and the creation of those to follow would be viewed, practiced, etc, etc.

  14. Chicago48 says:

    It must be a good movie. Roeper and Siegel liked it…and so did I to a point. Empty-headed and overly-acted, but a good way to spend 2 hours. Not a great movie, but not the worst either.

  15. T.Holly says:

    I have a suggestion: cod pieces over pants on every man, good for the groin, good for the eye.

  16. waterbucket says:

    Gerard Butlet is HOTZ!

  17. waterbucket says:

    haha I meant Butler.

  18. little_miss_moonshine says:

    Way HOTZ. Laudible career resuscitation after Phantom, Attila and Dracula 2000. Is Butlet the Cutlet too low profile to take a bit of the opening weekend gross?

  19. waterbucket says:

    Men in loincloths are HOTZ. Maybe David Poland will do one of his Daily Segments in loincloth. Oh wait, actually, no, he shouldn’t. Haha.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    He came close enough to that for Apocalypto.

  21. little_miss_moonshine says:

    jeffmcm, with the stinger.
    DP, herein, an official request for you to dine at Ammo with Gerry “the hotz” Butler. Book it now. Multiple page views will be yours. Just don’t go off on a Phantom tangent, please.

  22. waterbucket says:

    Oh my, David baby, if you ever interview Gerard, you must tell him that waterbucket loves him long time.

  23. LexG says:

    Whassup with that annoying narration?!?!?!?!?!
    I’m sure some fanboy could explain that it’s JUST LIKE THAT in the original HOLY, SACRED TEXT (aka, GRAPHIC NOVEL), but I really didn’t need EVERY. SINGLE. ACTION. described IN DETAIL via voiceover, especially during the battle scenes. Christ, why didn’t they just hire John Madden or Vin Scully????? “Leonides reached back… he pulled out his sword… and raised it…. sweat dripped from his helmet….” Thanks, fucker. Because I couldn’t tell what was going on.
    Does Tarsem Singh get royalties on this movie, BTW?

  24. Blackcloud says:

    ^ Why would he get royalties?
    Good discussion of the movie’s historical (and moral) obtuseness:

  25. jeffmcm says:

    I finally saw this tonight. It’s pretty much the worst, most evil kind of garbage you can find in a multiplex these days.

  26. Nicol D says:

    “This isn’t Kingdom of Heaven.”
    My thoughts exactly. People complaining about historical inaccuracies seem to have gotten their priorities mixed. Obviously, in any historical film there will be some give and sway as to fudging things to make the story more palatable or cinematic.
    But everything in degrees.
    300 by its virtual style announces that it is more in line with ‘fantastical’ epics such as Excaliber or even Conan the Barbarian then it is with historical accuracy.
    I am far more concerned with the gross innacuracies of films such as Kingdom of Heaven which presents its narrative in a more realistic vein or The DaVinci Code which says it is based on fact, which it is not. These films betray far more ignorance of their subject matter and in my own experience are manipulating far more people than 300, which is, by its very presentation more fantasy.
    I knew it wasn’t completely accurate the moment I saw the monsters with the steel arms coming out in chains.
    But 300 is a glorious tale, beautifully shot and acted. The action sequences are wonderfully staged and the slow motion actually helps you to orient yourself around the battle. At any given time you know who is fighting whom and why they are fighting them.
    It shows the flip side of many current war or battle films. Yes war is horror…but history also teaches that there can be glory in fighting or dying for something you believe in. That is why history is littered with martyrs who were willing to die for a cause.
    It also announces Gerard Butler as a new action hero if he is willing to take the mantle; something current Hollywood desperately needs.
    Sad that so many people are allowing their own ideological projections to get in the way of enjoying what is easily the best of the year so far.
    This is a true cinematic accomplishment on par with the first Matrix. Mark my words, this is not a throwaway film.
    Personally, I think Snyder hits the nail on the head with this quote from MTV;
    “The bad reviews are so fun. Stuff they say, like, ‘Zack Snyder has made homoeroticism safe for homophobes,’ is priceless. As soon as I hear ‘neocon’ or ‘homophobic’ in the review, I laugh to myself and say, ‘OK, this person has lost their inner child somewhere along the way, too much time in film school.’ ”
    My thoughts exactly.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    ^^^Which is just Snyder’s joking way to say “Please don’t think about my film too hard!”
    It’s a loathsome achievement. Just to tag onto the end of Nicol’s post, it’s film that is both homoerotic and homophobic at the same time, which means it’ll appeal to the Mark Foleys of the world.

  28. Nicol D says:

    “…both homoerotic and homophobic at the same time…”
    Well at least they’re trying to appeal to a very wide audience. Those Monday morning numbers were sweet.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    Do you own Time Warner stock?
    I know you just want to joke it off, but the movie’s chuckles at ‘those Athenian philosophers and boy-lovers’ coupled with the clearly androgynous and seductive Persian bad guys are the homophobic part. Match that with all the buff topless men and you have a movie that is deeply clouded in its sexual politics.
    Of course, that’s just the tip of the iceberg as to why this film is offensive.

  30. Nicol D says:

    No Jeff…I do not own stock in Time Warner.
    But boy, I sure do wish I did. Didya see those Monday morning numbers?

  31. jeffmcm says:

    You are such a hypocrite.

  32. jeffmcm says:

    At least we both know 300 will not gross as much as The Da Vinci Code.

  33. Nicol D says:

    My thoughts on you exactly, Jeff.
    A year ago when films like V for Vendetta and The Da Vinci Code were out you and many others were very derogatory towards me for not seeing that it was ‘only a movie’. Those films were very explicit in their attacks but you didn’t care. You thought I was being too sensitive and unsophisticated.
    Now, you project a film school induced bias into 300 and expect me to take you seriously.
    Snyder hit the nail on the head with his quote.
    You can’t have it both ways Jeff.

  34. jeffmcm says:

    Ha! Hit a nerve.
    I didn’t like V for Vendetta or The Da Vinci Code either, Nicol, but your problems with both of them went beyond their obvious flaws into a realm of paranoid delusion. You were being unsophisticated.
    My problems with 300 are not ‘a film school bias’. They are the result of my being an intelligent filmgoer who thinks about what he’s watching.
    Snyder is a hack – that’s the only way he could make both a smart satirical horror film like Dawn of the Dead and this pro-war, anti-human piece of technogarbage.

  35. Nicol D says:

    “You were being unsophisticated.”
    Are these the statements of sophisticated film criticism I am supposed to live up to?
    “…and this pro-war, anti-human piece of technogarbage.”
    “It’s a loathsome achievement.”
    “It’s pretty much the worst, most evil kind of garbage you can find in a multiplex these days.”
    Not terribly sophisticated comments, wouldn’t you say, Jeff?
    “They are the result of my being an intelligent filmgoer who thinks about what he’s watching.”
    No Jeff. Like Snyder says and I have told you before. They are a result of a bias induced into you through modern film school criticism. You are projecting what you are told are politically incorrect values onto a film that does not say what you need it to say.

  36. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, I’m being curt because I’m at my job. I could easily write hundreds of words on the subject of why this movie is the worst kind of cinematic poison; if you’d like, I will do so.
    As for the ongoing film school thing, I don’t know why I should take you seriously: you’re a film school dropout. You have no idea what classes I’ve taken or what I’ve learned, so stop trying to drag me into the your self-stew of resentment.

  37. jeffmcm says:

    Here’s something I posted on another site for your edification. Enjoy:
    “300 is not a bad movie.
    It’s toxic waste.
    First, let me get the good out of the way: the movie is visually stunning and technically virtually flawless. Zack Snyder knows how to
    shoot and stage an action scene. I did have some minor quibbles on the technical side, like how rubbery the hunchback’s body makeup was,
    or how much digital grain there was all over the place, but this will certainly go down as one of the year’s big technical achievements.
    Now the rest:
    To start with, I think it’s a big mistake to downplay this movie by saying “it’s just a comic-book movie”. This is an idealized fantasy war movie that shows that Americans are desperate for the creation of some kind of rousing narrative to counterbalance all the bad news they’re getting every day – that’s one of the reasons why
    it’s making so much money. And I don’t have a problem with national myths, they’re a necessary part of any culture.
    But I do have a problem with a popular national myth in which the good guys are chiseled, topless white dudes who look like frat boys
    and shrug off every wound with lines like “it’s only an eyeball”. A movie where the bad guys are exoticized Eastern weirdos of androgynous sexuality and freakish appearance, or faceless monsters out of a Todd McFarlane toy line. A movie that warps history so that the king of the Spartans gives the same bullshit speech
    about “freedom” that Mel Gibson gave in BRAVEHEART for no reason except that American audiences eat that shit up. A movie where 3/4 of the run time is given over to saliva-drippingly rendered scenes of
    the noble good guys slaughtering dozens, hundreds, of hapless bad guys in excruciatingly gory detail for our delight and bloodlust. A movie whose subtext is clearly, no-possible-way-can-you-miss-it about trusting in the all-knowing noble Leader and giving him as much support and manpower as he needs so that he can just finish the job, darn it! A movie that will encourage young men to join the military
    thinking that it’s all fun video-game action like what they see here (if only subconsciously, because that’s how national myths work), and
    that they get to go kick some ass in remote, gorgeously rendered scenic locales when in fact they’re just going to be shipped home
    from Falluja in a body bag, or given substandard treatment at some VA hospital and we’ll see them on the streets and mentally ill twenty
    years from now.
    This movie is racist, homoerotic and homophobic at the same time, pro-war, and pro-death. Seeing it makes me re-think my enjoyment of SIN CITY and Snyder’s DAWN OF THE DEAD (my hat goes off to James Gunn, who must now be considered the true auteur of everything good about that movie, since after two features it becomes clear that Snyder is
    a technically-gifted hack).

  38. Nicol D says:

    “…you’re a film school dropout. You have no idea what classes I’ve taken or what I’ve learned, so stop trying to drag me into the your self-stew of resentment.”
    No, Jeff. I actually have two completed degrees; one in Film, the other in Political Science. I also received three scholarships to do so if you must know.
    I do know what you have learned, Jeff because that’s how academia works. It moves in cycles. Right now, it is in the uber-PC trend. It is very narrow and insular and has very little to do with the reality of the world as we know it. That’s why Snyder felt confident making the comment about film schools that he did. They have become anti-art and even anti-film. Kids come out knowing precious little about film history but are all jangled up on PC-ideology.
    Thanks, though for posting your longer review. It actually does help me to know where you are coming from if you leave a post that is more than 5 lines long.
    You are projecting onto 300 what you want it to be, however. The Spartans could just as easily be seen as insurgents. A small group of ‘freedom fighters’ banding together to fight the invading Americans, if that is your bag.
    That’s why this film is so good. It is metaphorical enough that it can be what you want. To merely see it in terms of white skin vs. dark skin is too simplistic.
    Even the whole homophobic/homoerotic thing reaks of inconclusive projection of the ‘everything that is wider than it is long must be a phallic symbol’ variety.
    Snyder is no hack. Indeed, he just elevated himself to the A-list whether you like it or not.

  39. jeffmcm says:

    Let me start at the end: there are plenty of A-list hacks. I think you would agree Ron Howard is one of them. Michael Bay, McG, plenty others.
    Now back to the top: I really find it hard to believe that you have a degree in film based on your past remarks. I’m assuming your degree is in production or some other practical application, or if it’s in film studies then it was at some third-tier school where you didn’t learn very much. My experience has taught me that your dislike for modern film criticism is purely based on your own ignorance and insecurity, which can still be cured.
    But let’s keep this from getting personal, OK?
    Next, I feel no need to respond normally in your long-winded speechifying manner, except in matters such as this. It’s a waste of my time otherwise.
    So back to the film itself:
    It’s an easy out to say ‘the film can mean whatever you want’. Let’s lay out the facts of the movie:
    We have a group of ‘good guys’, the Spartans, living a peaceful existence until they are threatened by a barbarous invasion force. The good guys are representative of a certain type of physical ideal: strong-jawed, completely masculine and muscular, turgid in their machoness (contrasted positively with the effete intellectuals that are the Athenians). The Persians are swarthy, eastern, androgynous (Xerxes starts to give Leonidas a back rub) and bejewelled. They are representative of centuries-old stereotypes of Oriental decadence.
    The leader wants to vigorously fight back but is constrained from doing so by legalities, so he finds a way to circumvent them. When the battle begins, we are treated to scene after scene of the good guys slaughtering the bad guys, righteously, relishing every moment of bloodthirsty battle. There is no trace of doubt or moral ambiguity in any warrior’s mind: they live to kill and we, the audience, are whipped into a frenzy of bloodlust that remains unsated as the film ends with the promise of unending war.
    All of this takes place while our country is bogged down in a mismanaged war, sating our national desire for strong, resolute leaders who are ready and able to get things done. Too bad the movie is only a Hollywood fantasy.

  40. jeffmcm says:

    Let me add this: it would be a good movie if there was a hint, any sign, that war and killing one’s enemies are anything other than fun, cathartic, and pleasurable. The Lord of the Rings movies could have fallen into this same trap but were redeemed by their emphasis on character and a more complex system of morality and the simple awareness that urging a movie audience to revel in bloodlust is childish. I don’t think you need to bring in “Neocon” or “Iran” specifically to prove that there’s something rotten here.

  41. Blackcloud says:

    “they live to kill”
    Duh. They’re Spartans. That’s what they do. That’s all they do. It’s all they can do.
    The movie is pernicious stuff, but I don’t think it’s quite as loathsome as you do, Jeff, because it’s too full of itself to develop a coherent vision of what it’s about. Ultimately it gets lost in the technical thrills and spills and the message recedes. What does remain, though, is despicable. On the other hand, you do have to admire the audacity of a movie which argues for eugenics. Don’t you?

  42. Blackcloud says:

    “I do know what you have learned, Jeff because that’s how academia works.”
    So, Nicol, if you substituted “Sparta” for “academia” would that still be a statement of condemnation, or would it turn into one of praise?
    In general, anyone who finds support for their politics in this film is an idiot. Certainly no one on the right should be championing the Spartans, since their values are very far removed from what most people would recognize as being the values of the right, however conceived.
    The film revels in fear, and takes the Spartans’ xenophobia and applies it as a universal law. If the film says anything about contemporary society, that’s where it does so.

  43. jeffmcm says:

    “it gets lost in the technical thrills and spills and the message recedes.”
    The thrills and spills _are_ the message.
    The ironic thing is that if Bush had been a stronger leader, there wouldn’t be as much of a hunger for this movie, where a tough-minded autocrat actually _gets things done_.
    I hate to get bogged down in direct political allegory though – this movie would be bad whether we were in a war or not strictly on aesthetic and moral grounds.

  44. Blackcloud says:

    “I hate to get bogged down in direct political allegory though – this movie would be bad whether we were in a war or not strictly on aesthetic and moral grounds.”
    That’s exactly my point. Why make an argument for why the movie is bad on subjective grounds when there’s a much stronger one to be made for why it’s bad on objective grounds?

  45. Blackcloud says:

    “I hate to get bogged down in direct political allegory though – this movie would be bad whether we were in a war or not strictly on aesthetic and moral grounds.”
    That’s exactly my point. Why make an argument for why the movie is bad on subjective grounds when there’s a much stronger one to be made for why it’s bad on objective grounds?

  46. Blackcloud says:

    “I hate to get bogged down in direct political allegory though – this movie would be bad whether we were in a war or not strictly on aesthetic and moral grounds.”
    That’s exactly my point. Why make an argument for why the movie is bad on subjective grounds when there’s a much stronger one to be made for why it’s bad on objective grounds?

  47. Blackcloud says:

    Stupid TypePad.

  48. jeffmcm says:

    Not quite sure what you mean – are you saying political allegory is subjective? I don’t think it’s really possible to have an ‘objective’ opinion.

  49. jeffmcm says:

    PS to Nicol: I think one thing that we should both agree is that neither of us (or anyone) is capable of having an ‘objective’ opinion about a film or any work of art for that matter; every opinion we have will be suffused with our understandings of how a movie works, what criteria we use to judge art, and what we think people should or shouldn’t do in living their lives.
    That’s why I think you are disingenuous when you snipe at me by saying my opinions are full of “Film School academic PC”. You’re full of the equivalent ‘left-wing guy who rebelled when he want to college and became a right-winger’ stuff so please don’t pretend like you have some direct pathway to the truth (but I’ve known you long enough to understand this hope is futile).

  50. Stella's Boy says:

    Nicol sure likes his extreme graphic violence. I am just shocked, shocked, that he loves 300. Never saw that one coming.

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