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
Man, that “review” was easily the worst-written thing I’ve read all week… and I do believe frequented both DVD message boards and YouTube comments in the last seven days. It’s like a third-grade book report, stating woefully obvious background “facts” (it has been nearly 20 years! Ravenwood is so-and-so) and eschewing even a cursory level of actual criticism.
If I can nitpick, it even STARTS OUT with one of the most annoying amateur lines imaginable, that “Hollywood has been waiting” for the next edition of this series. I remember geeks using this line circa Phantom Menace time in 1999: “I’ve waited 16 years for this movie!!!”
BULLSHIT. Just as in the red-hot summer of 1990, the world at large wasn’t fantasizing what the “next” Star Wars would entail, nobody was really banking on a fourth Indiana Jones during the leaner ends of the last 19 FUCKING YEARS. Was there really a day in Spring ’97 where instead of bean-counting THE SAINT, all of Hollywood EN MASSE was ticking off the days till the inevitable next INDY OUTING?
Maybe that’s a trivial beef, but to me it’s pretty indicative of the overall incompetence in the writing in that “review.”
Beyond that, I’m calling it now: Harlow hasn’t seen the film.
He may have seen an extended promo reel of some sort, but he has NOT seen the film.
“John Hurt lurks menacingly as a rival hunter.”
Ummmmmm… no. No, he doesn’t. Not at all. That’s not what he’s playing, and he’s pretty far from being a “menace” in the film.
Nonsense and tomfoolery. But they’re a newspaper, so they’re “legit.”
By the way, Dave… even if you don’t want to admit it, “buzz” has certainly existed on this film since they began production. The stories we DIDN’T print would fill a book. Sourced stories. Accurate stories. You can pretend that the only buzz is from non-existent people, but you’re fooling yourself.
I hope that the film is awesome. I hope it blows people’s minds all day long tomorrow at Paramount. But you need to stop with this “there was no buzz” lie. Go talk to your friend Jack M. and ask him what the near-deafening buzz is and has been for months and months. It’s not from exhibitor’s screenings, m’man.
by no stretch of the imagination is that a proper review, but (slightly off topic) the mention of marion ravenwood made me think of a tv interview with ford i saw yesterday in which he was asked about how tom selleck was originally cast as indy in ‘raiders of the lost ark’, and a screen test was shown of the scene where indy meets up with marion for the first time at her bar in nepal, with selleck as indy and sean young as marion! those two together had all the chemistry and zing of one of those half-eaten sandwiches you find under the seat of the car a month after your kid has tossed it aside; he was all whiney with that huge bloody mustache and she looked seriously pissed off…thank the movie gods they didn’t get the nod for ‘raiders’! i sincerely doubt we’d be talking about an ‘indy 4’ today… i’m looking forward to seeing marion after all these years, she’s a pistol
Initial capsule reviews are already posted at Variety, Cinematical and Elsewhere. They’re all positive and say Skull compliments the previous sequels.
What I cannot understand…what I cannot fathom…is that on a regular basis we comment on articles from the “legit” media on the entertainment industry that usually agree are
1. poorly informed
2. poorly researched
3. filled with spin and bias
4. sometimes filled with lies
We usually agree that the writers may be hacks. That they do not know what they are talking about and that just because someone is considered a “legit” entertainment journo, does not mean they at all know what they are talking about.
Then, when the same “legit” media commits the exact same practices in politics, giving us fawning spin over Barack Obama (oh, hell, most left wing politicians) the majority of you fall for it hook. line. and. sinker. Then, most notions of being critical of a complete messianic deification with equal lack of research, information and filled with spin and bias, goes out the window.
It was my understanding of the misinformtion of the entertainment press that made me question the political press. And I found they were equally biased and inept. The logic in principle being if they can’t get simple entertainment info right…how could I trust them on the big stuff?
Just a point I’ve wanted to make for a while.
“Then, when the same ‘legit’ media commits the exact same practices in politics, giving us fawning spin over Barack Obama (oh, hell, most left wing politicians) the majority of you fall for it hook. line. and. sinker. Then, most notions of being critical of a complete messianic deification with equal lack of research, information and filled with spin and bias, goes out the window.”
Senator Joe Biden, CALL IT!
“Bullshit.”