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
the real interesting part of the deal is that it requires the studios to open up their books and allow a transparency heretofore unheard of.
i, too, think this is a hard deal for wga to pass up, but they haven’t gotten this deal yet. let’s see how else the amptp is going to try to “punish” them.
As much as I would like to see a WGA deal by the end of Sundance, the amount of vitriol about this deal quickly/knee-jerkedly appearing online –
http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2008_01_17.html#014663
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2462026865900537983&postID=7423436176146058984
– among other places, makes me think this isn’t as quick a slam dunk with WGA’ers as many would hope it to be.
I am becoming extremely concerned, particularly having read Mark Evanier’s preference for remaining on strike, and having read the multiple negative and hostile posts at United Hollywood. I’m amazed at the number of people who seem to be angry at the DGA and who don’t wish to take much time to consider this deal before condemning it. I’m hoping that those comments reflect a more hardline position than will prevail. But it’s still quite disturbing.
I was actually both surprised and shocked to see the DGA deal come in this quickly. That was after 5 1/2 days, which has to be an industry record. I believe it shows that both sides felt some urgency to get this strike over with and get back to work. If the WGA and SAG can follow this pattern, then this whole thing could be over quite soon. But if the hardliners rule the day, we’re looking at August. Right now, it appears to me that the WGA will not be accepting this as a pattern, in the hope that they can somehow get a better pattern by waiting for the SAG contract. Given that SAG does not even have its negcomm together yet, those talks can’t even happen for another month.
it’s not a particularly great deal, sort of like the 1985 low residual rate. still it is a deal, double is double. despite the fact that writers supply directors with material to direct, no one seriously expects them to get more, or strike for more, the writers know their place in the rigid caste system of hollywood. and this is the stick to beat the uppity ‘bastards’ back into their place.
{roll eyes}
Hollywood can’t write this stuff (well, not at the moment). The writers came off like whining, petulant teenagers (stereotype a) and the producers came off as greedy corporate manipulators (stereotype b). That’s a wrap.