MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB – Too Much

Just a note and some free space before I run off again.
This week has been relentless and the blog has suffered. On the other hand, I have no interest in being a Disposall for every e-mail that comes my way regarding the strike. God bless those who wish to position themselves so, but there is so little discussion of the real issues and so much discussions of celebrities on picket lines, alleged “secret meetings.” firings that never happened, etc.
The sad part is that everyone knows that very few people are interested in a serious discussion of the issues… even less so when the strike ends.
I wish it were a lot more complicated than knowing that when WGA actually struck, the studios went into a well-planned mode of response, which will actually make about a month of the strike profitable for the studios. If you want to know why there is so little coverage of the strike in town, it’s because there is no news… just more rumors and personalities. The borderline for some between gossip and news seems permanently busted.
Meanwhile, careers go on, production continues across the globe, and the story of how this strike is all about working writers making another $10k a year isn’t really playing. The stakes just aren’t high enough or important enough to make it a national story more important than whether you’ll see a new Leno next Monday. And remember, all the talk shows combined reach less than 10% of the American population these days.
Sigh… off to another screening…

Be Sociable, Share!

48 Responses to “BYOB – Too Much”

  1. Ian Sinclair says:

    Watch the fun and games on December 14 when Warners want their IMAX screens they were promised for I AM LEGEND while BEOWULF is still playing on them to sold out crowds.

  2. IOIOIOI says:

    Ian… that’s some fanciful thinking you got going on there. Real fanciful.

  3. Ian Sinclair says:

    Fanciful? Not according to the reviews.

  4. Wrecktum says:

    Paramount will give up their IMAX screens for two reasons: 1) Beowulf will still be on hundreds of 35mm digital 3D screens. 2) Warners has been IMAX’s most important studio partner over the last several years, and IMAX will not be willing to damage that relationship over 50 screens holding over a month old movie.
    Ian Sinclair = knows nothing about the film business

  5. Ian Sinclair says:

    They won’t if they are making a lot of money.
    Wrecktum = doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. As usual.

  6. Noah says:

    In all sincerity, Mr. Sinclair, I must ask: why are you such a rabid supporter of a film that you have not seen? Perhaps it’s just me, but I find it odd to have a rooting interest in how well a film does or how many awards it brings home if one hasn’t seen the film and formed an opinion.

  7. IOIOIOI says:

    Yes… the PEOPLE… love the REVIEWS. Get real dude. Get freakin real.

  8. Wrecktum says:

    “They won’t if they are making a lot of money.”
    I’m embarrassed by your lack of knowledge. Please stop.

  9. Blackcloud says:

    Saw “Michael Clayton” and “Bee Movie” tonight. Two legal thrillers! The acting and production is excellent in “Clayton,” but the story seems like they gave a bunch of monkeys a box of cliches from legal and corporate thrillers and they made a screenplay out of it. But, the ending’s great. Mind you, nothing that leads up to it is remotely plausible, but it works as a great movie moment. As for “Bee Movie,” it’s pretty clever for the first half, but turns into “Scorpion Movie” the moment it gets to court and stings itself to boredom, if not death. Oh, well. I never watched “Seinfeld.” The movie is not a compelling advertisment for it.

  10. Blackcloud says:

    Also saw “Across the Universe” yesterday. All I’ll say is, it’s amazing anyone could make such a reactionary movie out of such revolutionary music.

  11. David Poland says:

    There is no such thing as “giving up the screens” in the IMAX universe. Beowulf will be very successful, particularly on IMAX. I Am Legend will make more money than Beowulf, but will not be as strong an IMAX draw.
    But everyone knows what they are getting into here. These deals are VERY specific. Don’t be surprised to see Beowulf return to IMAX screens in January. And we’ll see if Warners sneaks in a few Polar Express screens along the way.
    ALSO… remember that Beowulf will have hundreds of non-IMAX 3-D screens.

  12. a1amoeba says:

    http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/nd07/mumblecore.htm
    I’m glad to see more people are hopping on this bandwagon. Mumblecore = lazy writing

  13. adorian says:

    Why does best make-up get only three Oscar nominees? Why isn’t it treated like costumes? Costumes get 5 nominees, so shouldn’t make-up also get 5?

  14. movieman says:

    Where are all of these rave “Beowulf” reviews you’re talking about, Ian?
    The only “official” review that I’ve seen so far was a very mixed one in Variety.
    Paramount is letting NE Ohio press see it Tuesday nite at another godawful promo–but at least it’s in 3-D.

  15. Ian Sinclair says:

    Movieman, you will find a ton of them at this link, including one from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
    http://forums.awardsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=5762

  16. doug r says:

    IMAX could slip Beowulf into afternoon matin

  17. Ian Sinclair says:

    I wonder how well I AM LEGEND will do? Neither of the trailers did much for me.

  18. Wrecktum says:

    “There is no such thing as ‘giving up the screens’ in the IMAX universe.”
    What Poland’s trying to say is that IMAX rental agreements are very rigid and films can’t holdover the same way they do in 35mm. The agreements for Beowulf and I Am Legend are probably already confirmed, so even if Paramount wanted to keep Beowulf on all IMAX theatres through December, they won’t be able to.
    Of course, Beowulf will probably become a perennial, and could conceivably play for years to come on IMAX screens.

  19. “I wonder how well I AM LEGEND will do? Neither of the trailers did much for me.”
    You were probably not paying attention because you had to clean yourself up after the Beowulf trailer.
    If Ian wasn’t a regular hear already I’d have no hesitation in calling him a plant. Which just makes it even more weird.

  20. Ian Sinclair says:

    Actually, dickhead, I didn’t like any of the BEOWULF trailers either, though I understand why they were aiming at the 300 crowd with them.
    As for why I am boosting Beowulf, it is an innovative movie: an fantasy adventure for adults in 3D, based on a story I have loved for a very long time, directed by one of my favourite directors, co-written by one of my favourite writers and starring one of my favourite actors. I have thought for some time that its ducks were in a row, and I am pleased and delighted that it is thrilling audiences. I love a great adventure movie and rather see a picture like Beowulfs than any twenty arthouse pictures currently showing.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    That still doesn’t explain the relentlessness and insistence of your cheerleading.

  22. L.B. says:

    Seriously. Just hope for the best like everyone does when a movie that intrigues them comes along. (Though “hope for the best” would be a tall order based on Zemeckis’ most recent output.) Or at least just pepper it with something- anything- else you’re excited about.

  23. Blackcloud says:

    I like the 3D. If that’s good I’ll be satisfied. Low expectations, but manageable ones!

  24. lazarus says:

    It’s not solely Sinclair’s cheerleading for Beowulf that’s the problem; it’s that he speaks out equally against someone like Paul Thomas Anderson, calling him juvenile, marginally talented, a ripoff artist, whatever, and then when various reviews of There Will Be Blood come out and proclaim it a breakthrough, his only response is, “Oh, it’s about a really nasty person, doesn’t seem like something I’m going to bother to watch” (this could also be the grounds on which you’d avoid Citizen Kane or Treasure of the Sierra Madre, among others). Apparently a slew of great reviews are enough for him to champion a potential teenage geek jerk-off film he hasn’t seen yet , but not enough to get him to a purported masterpiece because the subject matter might be slightly difficult–that’s if you believe his reasoning. Either he’s a philistine for avoiding challenging films (a contrast to the over-educated, snobbish twit his persona implies), or just rationalizing excuses he’s a stubborn ox who doesn’t want to risk admitting he may have underestimated a filmmaker whose previous work he vehemently berates at every opportunity. The same either/or applies to his insistence on The Golden Compass faring well in non-tech Oscar nominations next year.

  25. IOIOIOI says:

    After finally seeing American Gangster. I cannot only see it becoming the movie that replaces Scarface in the lexicon of GANGSTER FILMS, but it’s a damn fine movie. The dissing of this movie really confounds me. Yet… I am left with one thought… SUCK IT NOAH :D!

  26. Noah says:

    IO, the movie is perfectly good, but come on dude. Easy on the hyperbole (although I never thought Scarface was worthy of all that praise either), it’s a good movie, but the only movies it might have overshadowed are New Jack City and Blow.

  27. lazarus says:

    Agreed, Noah. Nothing really negative to say about AG, and I wouldn’t tell someone to stay away from it, but it wasn’t noteworthy or memorable to me in any way whatsoever.
    I think this film proves the point of your recent essay much more than something like Matchstick Men, or even Legend, as I thought it was rather anonymously directed.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    I agree, AG is certainly better than Blow, in its curious mix of inertia and self-pity. But in its total generic predictability it’s not as good of a film as Legend, which is really going for broke in trying to be iconic.

  29. IOIOIOI says:

    The three of you are so fucking out of touch with reality, that I am going to finish this in true BIZARRO fashion. You three good. You three smarter and better than everyone else in taste of movies. You superiour. Yeah… superiour.
    Oh yeah… Noah… you fucking bad-mouthed Ridley Scott on the front page of MCN. Seriously… dude… never ever ever think that you can confront me on anything after that debacle :D.

  30. lazarus says:

    IOetc., just make a comparison of the pre-credit openings to AG and GoodFellas, and you’ll see a little microcosm of the difference between the two films. Both end in an unexpected (and unnecessary) burst of violence, but whereas Scorsese uses his scene to illustrate the bloody, ramshackle menace of the world these lower-rung mob hoods inhabit, Scott’s just trying to immediately place his film in some kind of Gangsta Hall of Fame and show us how much of a badass Denzel Washington’s character is before we even get to meet him. Even worse, AG shows us a total non-sequitir that has seemingly nothing to do with the story it introduces, whereas the scene from GoodFellas is expanded on later in the film and actually has some kind of point to it. Wouldn’t it have been more effective later on when we’ve actually begun to think Lucas may be a halfway decent human being?
    Even Casino’s stylized opening said so much more in its shocking moment transitioning into the Saul Bass titles.

  31. Noah says:

    IO, I might have more respect for your opinion if you hadn’t called Robert Englund in The Adventures of Ford Fairlane one of the best performances you’ve ever seen. So please, your opinion is meaningless to me and your brash arrogance in your writing is tiresome šŸ™‚

  32. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, if you think it’s so good and that there’s something that we’re not getting, I am perfectly able to be persuaded by a concise, well-written critical analysis of the film and its place within its genre and society in general. Feel free.

  33. IOIOIOI says:

    IO; HELLO HELLO. Seriously… it was funny and unlike you wankers… I went with performances that have stayed with me over time. Not performances that would make me look cool with a bunch of strangers. Please feel free to stop playing. Nevertheless Jeff… I am not your dancing monkey. You can go and read Laz’ poorly thoughtout analysis if you need someone to dance for you JEFF! DO YOU NEED SOMEONE TO DANCE FOR YOU? DO YOU?

  34. IOIOIOI says:

    It’s NOAH not IO to start that post, but I do enjoy the “HELLO HELLO”. Apparently it would be a lot cooler if I were either a failed old-man living in Los Angeles or a 24 year-old that believes he knows everything about film. Good to know. Good to know.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    Or you could provide a link to a review that expresses your opinion.
    Calling something ‘poorly thought-out’ without explaining why is kind of pointless.

  36. lazarus says:

    “Performances that have stayed with me over time”? What time, the 2 weeks since the film came out? Check back in a few years and let me know how memorable they are compared to the other great turns by these guys. Personally, I think I’ve seen at least 5 better from each.
    A couple of very good perfs may be good enough for something like Sleuth or a David Mamet film, but this film doesn’t stand out enough to earn its braggadocious title. Scarface is trash but it’s iconic, immensely entertaining trash, and it’s not for you to say that AG has “replaced it in the lexicon of gangster films”. Talk about poorly thought-out analysis. What are you, the voice of the hood or something? Jay-Z’s new album is actually more interesting, badass, and memorable than this film which inspired it, and is more likely to hold up as some kind of classic of its genre.
    Up yours if you’re unable or unwilling to have an intelligent discussion. You don’t want to be the dancing monkey, but no one asked you to poke your head in the door, shout “American Gangstah, bitches!!!” and tell Noah to SUCK IT. If you’re going to start shit, don’t complain about the stench when you’re asked to clean it up.
    Ain’t no love in the heart of the hot blog.

  37. Noah says:

    Honestly, IO, I’ve never pretended to know everything about film, but you sure do. And as everyone else has said already, please make an argument about why you feel a certain way about movies as we have all done. You simply just do your “seriously brah, you suck” routine and I have to wonder why you come to a film blog if you have no interesting in discussing film? It seems you just want to point out when you don’t agree with someone and then cast aspersions on those people. Oh, but you always end it with a šŸ™‚

  38. IOIOIOI says:

    Laz; you are not in this league. You are in your own — sorry ass league — where mofos lack reading comprehension. Seriously; why dont you READ a post before you respond to a post. It would make it even easier to throw down all over your poorly thought out — and poorly executed — arguments.
    Noah; this is a blog. This is a comment section. I am commenting. Excuse me for not wanting to have a discussion with the three of you. When clearly… you are fucking haters. Your clamouring for a discussion — or an argument — is simply postering. You do not care what I have to share about American Gangster. You do not care about my appreciation of CGI opium fields. Nor do you care that I love the composition of this film via the HD cameras. You do not care about any of that because… YOU ARE FUCKING HATERS. Haters hate. So excuse me for not giving a shit about what you want or what you think of me… YOU FUCKING HATERS.

  39. jeffmcm says:

    It’s probably better for me to just let that rant stand for itself, but IOI, I honestly am interested in why you think it’s so good, but all I see from you is a string of disconnected tangents. If you would like to explain why we’re wrong in productive terms, please, that would be nice. But if you just want to throw a tantrum, then we should just stop wasting our time.

  40. IOIOIOI says:

    I’m not throwing a tantrum, Jeff. You three are attacking me. You get that response when you attack me.
    I made two honest statements that anyone whose familiar with pop culture would understand except for you three. Seriously; you need to back off me unless you want to me to respond to you in kind.
    Nevertheless; I have no respond to give you because you do not care. All of three of you do not care. So excuse me for not caring to respond to the three of you.

  41. Noah says:

    IO, I genuinely do care about what insights you have. Just because we have a disagreement doesn’t mean we have to have an argument. I care about your insights just like I care about the insights of everybody that comments here. I come to this blog to discuss movies with people who love film. I can see that you are passionate and have a lot of opinions, I just want to hear those opinions rather than snark.
    But if you’d rather just call me hater, then why don’t we just agree to play on opposite sides of the sandbox?

  42. IOIOIOI says:

    Noah; you came at me with nothing but snark. Excuse me for not finding this to be a genuine response. When you claim that I did something, that you did yourself.

  43. Noah says:

    IO, you mentioned my name out of nowhere:
    “Yet… I am left with one thought… SUCK IT NOAH :D!”
    So, I didn’t exactly “come at” you with anything until you brought me up. Then when I expressed my opinion, you told me that my opinion didn’t matter because you disagreed with me on the Ridley Scott issue, so then I in turn told you that you have some favorites on your resume that are a little suspect and that’s an attack? Like I said earlier, perhaps we should just play on opposite sides of the sandbox if we’re not going to get along. I want to hear your opinions on movies and why you feel that way and if you think that’s not genuine, then let’s just move on.

  44. IOIOIOI says:

    Noah; the only thing you want to do is attack me for seeing things in my own way. If you — anyone of you including Poland — want to attack me. You fucking get attacked back. That’s how it is for now on. I was attacked for no real reason. Especially when you fail to get that I responded to you in a rather silly way, then you come after me. Well… get ready for me to come after you. Whenever you start attacking me for no damn reason.

  45. Noah says:

    I appreciate other people’s points of view, I believe you were one of the many who called me an idiot for my feelings on Ridley Scott. You dish it out and then you make it seem like you can’t take even the slightest criticism. This is silly, though. This is like Artie’s fight with Richard and Sal. Let’s just declare detente.

  46. IOIOIOI says:

    Noah; it is silly. I simply refuse to be attacked by anyone. It seems everyone else can make a statement without the knives coming out. Yet… I do it… and it’s nothing more than a knife fight. That’s how I feel. I also do not believe that I called you an idiot. Nor did I call your stance “idiotic. We simply disagreed. Nevertheless; we can move on. All I ask is to not be singled out. If you single me out. The above is what will happen.

  47. hendhogan says:

    i figure this will give dan pleasure:
    http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
    but it changes daily, so check out today’s

  48. hendhogan says:

    sorry, typo’d there. don, not dan. as in don murphy.

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” ā€” 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 ā€” 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 ā€” he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā€” and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā€” I was with her at that moment ā€” 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 namedā€”” “Yeah, sure ā€” 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 Iā€™m on the phone with you now, after all thatā€™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 didnā€™t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereā€™s not a case of that. He wasnā€™t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā€” if that were what the accusation involved ā€” 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. Iā€™m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, ā€œYou know, itā€™s not this, itā€™s thatā€? Because ā€” let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatā€™s what it lacked. Thatā€™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