MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB – Tuesday… And On…

I don’t know how soon I will be adding the next entry… could be 10 minutes… could be 5 days…
Be careful out there.

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Responses to “BYOB – Tuesday… And On…”

  1. martin says:

    Are you on crack, with all these posts?

  2. Roman says:

    Thanks David, you watch your back too.
    And with that I would like to hijack this topic:
    India wants to give DreamWorks $2 Billion:
    Thoughts? Suspicions?

  3. mutinyco says:

    Its Persis Khambatta’s revenge.

  4. Roman says:

    The 39 Clues:
    Clue #1. Spielberg won’t be directing.

  5. Roman says:

    Clue #2. They are trying to build a library of “safe” and “profitable” franchises.

  6. Aladdin Sane says:

    Come on Martin, don’t steal my schtick!

  7. IOIOIOI says:

    If the influx of Indian cash can help Dreamworks like it has helped countless other aspects of this world like Team Force India Ferrari. Dreamworks should be in good shape over the next few years. Since the Indian cash can usually buy a lot of good stuff.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    Clues to what? Spielberg won’t be directing what, movies? I kind of think he will be.

  9. Monco says:

    Did anyone else see that Rolling Stone has posted the first review of The Dark Knight. I didn’t know they were screening this already. I didn’t read it because I want to go in fresh but it was positive. Though coming from Peter Travers that doesn’t mean much.

  10. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Of course Peter Travers is a quotewhore. He also is a right-wing hack who denounced “Rendition” purely for political reasons.
    His conduct reminds me of those “Perception/Reality” ads Rolling Stone ran in trade papers during Reagan time. Those ads confirmed that Rolling Stone was so over, even back then.

  11. LexG says:

    Chucky has added a new skill set to his repertoire!

  12. Jocab Smith says:

    HEY This is a wonderful SITE. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
    Click Fights

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