May 8, 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
From the Fantasy Moguls article:
“In 2006, Brian Grazer and Ron Howard decided to open The Da Vinci Code at Cannes, which actually made some sense. The film carried an R-rating, and it was set in France with a chunk of the film being shot in the Louvre Museum.”
I’m sorry, but are writers going out of their way to be uninformed now? Errors and logic like these make the already shaky premise fall apart all the quicker.
And can you imagine a more critic proof movie than Indiana Jones? I sure as hell can’t, although I understand that is beside the point, David.
The Times (UK) is part of News Corp., which owns 20th Century Fox. The Indiana Jones franchise (er, movies) are from Viacom-owned Paramount.
Peter Bart is probably ashamed yet doesn’t want to be accused of helping his old employer.
David, this is off-topic, but could you PLEASE fix the Joel Silver interview link. It hasn’t been working since the day you posted it!
Dragan,
I second that motion: I tried the Silver interview and it didn’t play. Worse, my browser crashed! So I went to YouTube and watched an old one of Silver with Charlie Rose. It was quite entertaining and for all the legends that shroud the man, I think it would be fun to share his company for more than an hour.
Re: Indiana Jones… I think the scribes are trying to sharpen their swords when really, the public don’t want this film to fall. At the most we are apprehensive about how good or bad it is going to be… but none of us really HATE, HATE, HATE the notion. I don’t think there is anywhere near the levels of animosity on this one where there was on either The Da Vinci Code or Star Wars.
I am apprehensive but have been won around somewhat by the interviews Spielberg gave to the NYT when he spoke about the choreography of the scenes and playing the shots in long(ish) takes.
I find it likely that many of these reports have been written by people who’ve been hearing bad buzz, which I have for months now, and are using writing this story as an excuse to warn the audience of it. When you launch a film as they are about to, it doesn’t strike as confident. But we’ll know more Sunday, when the cat and bag are forever separated.
Thing is, Della… how often is “bad buzz” or “good buzz” nothing but vapor? And how is it ever and act of journalism, much less reponsible journalism, to “warn the audience” about something we have no real answer for… especially when that “answer” is just a couple of days away.
This thing about getting ahead of the story is a nasty game that people play with other people’s money… and effort… and passion… and lives. It is selfish and arrogant and wrong as often as it is right, except that being negative is always relatively safe, since most movies do end up sucking.
What about this release is not confident?!?!? Were they supposed to show it weeks ago to show confidence? Do you understand that there is NO UPSIDE to releasing this kind of pre-sold film that way?
I don’t blame you for not understanding that this is, in fact, the right and confident way to release this movie. (And you know that I am considered an ass by many marketing execs for being so hard on the choices they make to release movies and accusing them of hiding their product.) But that’s a function of Web Buzz Look-At-Me World and not the reality of releasing a movie.
I read the early reviews on AICN and it makes me wonder about the state of our current moviegoing audience. Have we been so inundated with hyper, ADD Michael Bay style visuals that we can’t sit back and enjoy a good solid action film? I wonder how the original Indy films would play if released today? What about Die Hard or French Connection? Can the mass audience appreciate an action film that doesn’t jump cut every 2.2 seconds?
I, for one, can’t wait to see the movie…and no negative review from AICN or Cannes or any major media outlet will change my mind. They probably just don’t get it.
Or maybe they DO get it, and the film is simply underwhelming like the second trailer.
Still, the sharpening of the critical knives beforehand is just a boring story, and not really worth the digital bytes to type up.
Sadly, this kind of un-information is passing for truth in less enlightened (i.e. less likely to have ever followed Cannes at any level) circles. A friend of this sort said to me yesterday: “I hear everyone’s worried the French will trash it.”
?! Who cares who trashes it, anyway, when this kind of premiere is a coup, period?
Anne Thompson posted this, David: “And at Cannes, select press are being invited to do interviews before the official press screening at 1 PM on May 18. This will add more pressure to the press conference that day. UPDATE: Paramount is also not throwing a party, instead sticking to a small exclusive film dinner. That’s not winning them any popularity contests.” I don’t care about the party, but having the talent talk before people see the movie? Add that to the poor trailers, and that for a while I had been hearing only Wednesday night courtesey screenings, well, you read that as confident?
Yes, the film is presold, yes, the opening weekend will be huge. Yes, as has been evident for a rather long time now, critics don’t matter. At the same time, buzz is not necesarily smoke and mirrors, depending on who it’s coming from.
Again, Della… pretty much every single one of the other movies that have worked Cannes in this slot for the last 8 years has done the same.
Remember, Anne contributed to Variety’s false report about no big movies going to Cannes since Da Vinci.
And what the hell is holding a rumor about Wednesday night courtesy screenings against a film? They are screening the shit out of the film tommorrow. Is that out of fear and embarrassment?
And what kind of half-ass bullshit is it to whine about Paramount not sucking the ass of the journalistic community so they can get access to talent that doesn’t want to be accessed? Boo-fucking-hoo. Entitlement is a bitch… especially when you aren’t entitled.
Next thing you know, someone will be whining about their badge color… oh wait!
You are right… buzz isn’t neccessarily smoke and mirrors if it is based in good sources of info. So, can you name a single one in this case… other than your personal opinion about the trailers?
When they want you to talk to the talent before you see the movie, it’s usually not a good sign. It could be scheduling, of course. And generally when something is only screened for critics hours before general release it is also not a good sign. That didn’t happen, but that’s what was being presented until the Cannes thing.
I used to work in exhibition as a film buyer, so I know people who’ve seen the film.
I can’t count on my fingers and toes how many times exhbitors I know have been wrong after screenings in the just the last year.
If you have someone you trust who thinks the movie fails, I will accept that… as one opinion. And who knows… they might be right. They might not.
As for the interview sched… it’s very Cannes. The Da Vinci junket was on a train on the way to Cannes. And who do we think Paramount has to parade around? Steven? George? Harrison? They are scared of what dumb thing Shia might say and Karen Allen is lovely, but if she does all the work, they won’t get the coverage they want.
If this was a US junket, I would agree 100%. But it’s not. And under these circumstances, it’s not terribly unusual.
Well, at least you conceded it is based on something. I feel like Obama has made a difference in the national discourse, and in this discussion. I have a dream that some day you and Drew will have civil discourse. I may not make it there with you, but I have that dream.
They share one thing in common, a deep and unconditional love for Speed Racer.
I know multiple exhibitors who’ve seen this movie. Some of them liked it. Some of them didn’t. It makes no difference at all.
While I agree with you 100% Dave, I think you would be best to do a bit of extra research yourself. Both Shrek and Shrek 2 were nominated for the Palme d’Or at Cannes. And that info was only a few clicks away on IMDb.
Perhaps I’m just being pedantic, but…
Drew and I do have civil discouse… it’s just rare in print or when discussing the sites.
Too funny. Writers and bloggers are holding up Indy 4 this week as if it IS a Crystal Skull. “Look! I have an opinion on it! I have it! Read me! I’m relevant again! And hey, I know who Louise Brooks is too!”
Even Ebert can’t resist its life-giving power. For the first time I can remember, he violates his own publish on the release date rule to chime in early. Not Ebert too!
The divine light of Indy review buzz, opened (like the Ark in the first movie) by the French, is melting the faces of everyone around.
IIRC, Ebert’s review of Attack of the Clones (or was it Sith?) was up a week or so before it opened.
OK, fine he just loves him some Indy…
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/i_admit_it_i_loved_ind.html#more
But he also thinks DP is “poetic.”
So who knows.
The revelation that Roger Ebert reads this site suddenly makes me want to sit up straighter and comb my hair.
Revelation? You’re being facetious, right?
Don’t know what you mean.
It seems obvious he’d read the site. He’s had an association with DP for several years now. It’d be more of a revelation if he didn’t read the site.
News to me.
Anyone know if Christina Ricci reads this blog?
WHAT’S UP, HOTNESS?
Jeff, it’s not like they’re best pals (as David himself admits), but given that he was one of the post-Siskel guest hosts, it’s not like they’re total strangers either. I’d say David’s profile was much less prominent then than it is now. Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment, but it seemed like you were saying it was pretty random that Ebert quoted DP and is familiar with the site, whereas I don’t find that random at all. I think Ebert’s referred to MCN before, too.
Nothing against DP, it just always amazes me that real bigwigs would read at least the blog portion here because it seems to be primarily populated by smartasses, the bipolar, and the occasional Don Murphy.
The bigwigs love the blog.
You should read my fan mail.
Shut up.
Ebert only mentioned Movie City News though! People will get confused.