April 20, 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
Saw this earlier.
This is brilliant, but also has me a little worried about the film at the same time
It might be over-familiarity with a 19-year-old movie (Jesus Christ, Burton’s Batman is older than Miley Cyrus) but in these clips, the pieces from TDK look stronger than the pieces from Batman, with the exception that the Batwing is inherently cooler than the Bat-a-cycle or whatever it’s called.
Wasn’t the initial thing about this video that the trailers were similar but now proven to be fake as it was edited to be so or is it now that both movies have similar scenes?
My first ever job was as an usher in an old movie theatre in 1989 when the first Batman came out. I have seen that film and its trailer countless times and love it.
What I find fascinating though, is how people forget how it was receieved. People think of it now as being somewhat lighter or tamer than the comic book movies we see currently but at the time, with Ghostbusters 2, Indy 3, Honey I Shrunk the Kids and such out, it was widely criticized for being too dark and violent and decidedly not for kids.
I remember an article talking about the fact that the film had a huge misogynist and mean streak to it.
Too this day, the line-ups for that film are the longest I have ever seen waiting to get into any film including any of the original or re-releases of the Star Wars films. When I saw the premiere in at the old Uptown in 70 MM there was police there for crowd control.
I bought it on DVD a while back and was suprised at how well it stands up. Yes, it has flaws – feels like it was shot on sets, action scenes could be looser, Prince music dates it – but overall it is a very solid film that has nothing to be ashamed of.
I suspect it will be some years for us to let the dust settle and we can see whose performance (Nicholson or Ledger’s is the most legendary).
Yes, it is fake. It was cut together to resemble the new picture’s trailer.
I don’t think they’re similar at all. For one, the image on the bottom is much wider than the image at the top.
First off, I’m under the impression that the Batman trailer is fake, editied together to resemble the Dark Knight trailer. The original 1989 Batman trailer was not that montage and actually seems almost dated in compared to the narrative style of modern trailers.
Second off, it does bring up an interesting point.. For all the hub-bub about how dark and violent The Dark Knight is supposed to be, we all forget how insanely violent the original Burton Batman was in 1989. We have an onscreen or mentioned offscreen body count near the triple digits, mostly all civilians and cops, and at three scenes of mass civilian crowds being slaughtered for sport (the machine gun massacre at the city hall steps, the gassing of the museum, and the climactic gassing of the partygoers).
Point being, Ledger is not the first Joker actor to portray him as a heartless mass murderer. Heck, if you count Mark Hamill (still my favorite onscreen Joker, and one who racked up quite a body count from 1992-2003, albeit often in the subtle don’t let the parents notice manner of afternoon cartoons), Ledger is the third. He may be terrific, but he’ll have to do something more than kill people and laugh about it to be truly groundbreaking.
Scott Mendelson
Nicol, that’s a good point that people forget how dark and violent the first Burton Batman movie is — especially in that he pretty much ignores the character’s refusal to take a life, which has lead to some really interesting dilemmas in the comics (of course, that wasn’t developed until later — very early in the comics, Batman carried a handgun and straight-up murdered criminals).
I also find it interesting that Burton has repeatedly said in interviews that he feels a little bit cool towards the first film. I can see what he means; there’s the deadly dullness of the Vicki Vale material (as well as the Robert Wuhl comic relief or whatever), the generic B-movie criminals apart from the Joker, the cheesy Prince songs… it’s an interesting but definitely flawed film. I do like that such a bizarre, idiosyncratic film (even if it’s less personal than Burton’s best) was such a sensation.
And I flat-out love Batman Returns — it has a lot of the good of the first movie (the freakshow element of Gotham City, the darkness, Keaton’s excellent underplaying, the Burton touch) with little of the bad. It feels more like Burton’s “take” on Batman and he gets a lot of stuff right (though the killing is still there).
So I don’t feel like Ledger will be filling really big shoes in terms of his Joker performance, because Nicholson’s is so much more “JACK” than Joker. It’s the Shining problem — Nicholson seems like kind of a sadistic loon even before he “turns” into the Joker. I guess that’s a moot point as I doubt we’ll see a pre-Joker Ledger in the film, but that still makes him seem a little scarier than a creepy criminal who takes an acid bath and becomes a slightly creepier criminal.
Hamill’s Joker in the cartoon is pretty great — though they pinched the lame mob-guy origins from the ’89 film for the otherwise excellent Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Begins, Returns, and Phantasm are the three Batman movies I own on DVD.
Yes, this is a few months old now, but seems to be just making the rounds now as the new trailer is set to be released. While I have no personal love for the film, I do agree with jesse that it is quite neat that it became such a sensation.
The Dark Knight can’t come soon enough, but until then we’ll all have to endure it being compared to all the other Super Hero flicks out this year. Can’t wait for the “Is TDK in trouble?: Super Hero glut could hurt BO” headlines over at Nikki’s.
I love Mask of the Phantasm, and mostly all of Tha Animated Series. I also love the Tim Burton original and what Nolan is doing now, but maybe it’s just the comicbook geek in me, but I feel that Batman is at his best when he’s hand drawn.
Will you be checking out ‘Gotham Knights’? Kevin Conroy is returning to voice Batman, and the Yoshiaki Kawajiri segment looks to rival the cinematography of The Dark Knight.
Oh yeah! That looks damn cool.
Direct-to-DVD animated anthologies are all good in my book – though it’s a book mainly made up of the Animatrix.
I am almost more psyched for Gotham Knights on Blu-Ray than I am for TDK….Almost..
“I don’t think they’re similar at all. For one, the image on the bottom is much wider than the image at the top.”
Heh. I’m sure in 1989 I didn’t notice or care about the difference, but these days I’m always bummed when a big-ticket event flick isn’t shot in Scope. The first Spider-Man being in 1.85:1 felt just a little less epic for using standard framing.
I’m glad Burton has gone widescreen more often than not in recent years, and that Spielberg has rediscovered Scope (when warranted) after an entire decade of movies that deserved the wider frame.
While I like the Burton Batman films, the scope of of Nolan’s Batman is utterly amazing. Very epic, yet still feels intimate.
Say what you will about Schumacher’s movies, but Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy sure owns the fuck out of ROBERT WUHL and his stupid “wicker people” jokes.
I would agree, except she doesn’t get naked.
Can we have a moratorium on the verb ‘to own’ please?
I’ll respectfully say no.
To echo an earlier thread-the best picture I’ve seen so far this year was the IMAX DK scene shown at the beginning of I Am Legend. Kind of took the steam out of the beginning of IAL, AFAIAC.
Stuff shot in IMAX seems to have the immediacy of TV, yet it’s crystal clear-feels like you’re right there.
Let’s do the reverse. Everyone should use OWN (in all-caps, every time) in every single post.
We’re taking it back!
I OWN
i LEASE (welcome to 2008)….
HALLICK TIMESHARES YOUR ASS WITH AN ITAMAE IN PALO ALTO
well, if we’re gonna be truthful…
I RENT FOR $500 A MONTH UTILITIES INCLUDED
I used to OWN. Then I got married and now the wife OWNS
“I RENT FOR $500 A MONTH UTILITIES INCLUDED”
You must live somewhere off the beaten path…like the year 1992.
That’s a good one. I do like what Nicol brought up in terms of the 1989 Batman being dark. I remember seeing that flick at a it’s midnight screening as a kid and routinely stating; “They never said it would be light and fluffy.” While it has nothing on Begins. Batman ’89 does indeed hold up almost 20 years later. Oh snap. I just made some Warner Video Exec realize that they only have a year left to complete their 20th ANNIVERSARY EDITION DVD/BLU-RAY edition of BATMAN. Freakin Warners.
OK, it’s another remake. What else is new? Are we letting down the economy if we refuse to watch new films which are near enough just like the old films (except usually worse)?