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
I found “Rocky Balboa” and “Rambo” to both fit the “yes” category – same with “Death Wish II,” eight years after “Death Wish” (though “Death Wish III” is kind of the ‘money’ “Death Wish” sequel).
Discussing the feelings of homesickness (i.e., what we now call “nostalgia”) experienced by Swiss soldiers sent to fight abroad, Kant writes in Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, “after they visit these same places [of their childhoods] they are greatly disappointed in their expectations and thus also find their homesickness cured. To be sure, they think that this is because everything there has changed a great deal, but in fact it is because they cannot bring back their youth there.”
In other words, you can’t go home again. It’s impossible. Not only because home has changed but, more importantly, because you have.
very nice Blackcloud. And a fine example of why the scouring of the shire needed thematically to be in the Rings films. It always rang false to me that they came back to an untouched paradise exactly as it was before the war changed them.
I’ve been catching ROCKY BALBOA on Showtime for the past couple of weeks and Stallone really made an excellent film there, a nice coda to the story. It gets a little over the top at times (yeah, I went there) but it earns its emotions.
I have a real reason to not like CRYSTAL SKULL, and it’s separated from any nolstalgia that I might feel – I can’t stress enough, the lack of real stunts and stuntmen hurts CRYSTAL SKULL immensely. There’s just no comparison to even some of the stuntwork in LAST CRUSADE. But comparing CRYSTAL SKULL’s action setpieces to the truck chase in RAIDERS is polishing a turd.
I’ve yet to see Crystal Skull, but in contemplating general Indiana Jonesness at the time of its release, I drew the same conclusion … but about Last Crusade. Everything in that movie feels like it was Spielberg apologizing to a mass audience put off by Temple of Doom: Let’s bring back the Nazis and even throw in Hitler this time, let’s throw out anything explicitly grotesque, let’s play down the cartooniness (like surviving a plane crash on an inflatable raft), let’s add some father/son kitsch …. Again, I haven’t seen Crystal Skull so I don’t know what it offers, but for all its merits, I think Last Crusade was the “fan service” Indy.
While I enjoyed Indy 4 for what it was, I thought that Spielberg’s greatest misstep was not utilizing the passing of years in a way that added at least a hint of emotional heft to the fourth film. In the intervening post-War years since we last saw Jones, the world had gotten a lot smaller, with less places to explore. For a guy like Indiana Jones that has to give him pause when he’s closer to the end than the beginning.
I think what worked about Rocky Balboa and gave that film an unexpected depth is that Rocky has not changed as a character, the world around him has and we see him struggle to fit in. That needed to be the emotional underpinnings of a fourth Indiana Jones movie.
Hell, you could keep the whole space alien angle and that kind of underpinning actually helps advance and ground that plot. Even though there are fewer mysteries on this planet left to solve, Indy discovers that there’s a great big universe out there filled with knowledge and it re-invigorates his spirit. It would give that spectacular image of the space craft taking off in front of Indy so much more. Instead of just being a great visual, you would’ve felt Indy’s spirits being lifted.
But like everything else…woulda…shoulda…coulda. Indy 4 is enjoyable for what it is, but any movie series that takes a nearly two decade-long hiatus is going to suffer from unfulfilled expectations, missed chances and the kind of compromises that one has to make to get guys like Lucas, Spielberg and Ford to get on with telling the story.
BEFORE SUNSET leaps to mind. A perfect little reunion of characters after 9 years.
THE COLOR OF MONEY was also a welcome return after 25 years. With the newfound young energy of a post AFTER HOURS Scorsese at the helm.
ROCKY BALBOA was the first thing that came to mind, even before I saw the other comments. I’d heard it was good, but I wasn’t expecting it to get me emotionally like it did.
How ridiculous is it that a sixth Rocky movie turned out better than a Spielberg-directed fourth Indy?
Just like any sequel, a new one needs to offer the same, but different. The twist here is that we’re talking about sequels made after long gaps, so that there’s more of an interval for the originals to be idolized (for better or worse).
In the case of Indiana Jones, one of the biggest differences, which I keep repeating, is that Spielberg ’08 isn’t the same director as Spielberg ’89. He’s more complacent in some ways, more skilled and daring in others, and the new movie reflects both. He’s never going to give us another Jurassic Park or Raiders, but he probably will give us another Minority Report or Schindler’s List.
Also, I’m very much not anticipating JJ Abrams’ Star Trek. It’ll be fun to see everything with expensive state-of-the-art effects but I’m not convinced Abrams is sympatico with the rest of what Star Trek was really about (yes, this is my area of nerdspertise).
It’s like the rap talent I am working with on a project said after we saw Indiana Jones…
He said as we walked out of the theater – “I give it a 7.5 or 8!” Big smile on his face.
“Yeah but it could’ve been SO MUCH MORE!” I say..
He says “Dude, you just gotta look at these movies as nothing more than an Eagles Reunion concert.”
“They don’t sound or play the way they used to, but you’re so jazzed to see them all come together again and play all the songs you love one more time, you just enjoy it for that no matter how out of tune or different sounding they’ve become”
And there it is.
I know someone very inside working on Star Trek…
I’m a huge fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.
The inside I know that I can say:
JJ Abrhams is a pretty big Trekker. You could argue that his passion for the material rival Raimi on Spiderman.
My biggest problem with the idea of the movie is..
No Shatner.
I was hoping for a twist, a secret, I guess a wish that maybe they would somehow fit in Shatner, but it definitely isn’t happening for the following reasons:
1. They do not feel they have a sufficient workaround to bring him back from the way they killed Kirk in Generations – to this I say Bullshit, I came up with a story fix on that in five minutes. I can’t believe they cannot. Especially after watching the amazing LOST season finale a second time…
The Real Reason:
J.J. is way pissed at Shatner for the way Shatner dissed and trashed him in the press. Mainly at that story AICN ran where Shatner complained for not being in it. Which was still a remote possibility up to that point.
They even wanted to use Shatner for some of the extra’s for the eventual film’s DVD/Blu-Ray release. Maybe an interview between old and young Kirk, but JJ wasn’t having any of it after Shatner’s press tantrum.
So AICN running that story, effectively killed any chance they could’ve used to work that in when they chose to extend production.
Thanks Harry & Drew.
Shatner did sign off on the actor that plays Kirk though, so at least the new guy has the original’s blessing..
This question has a simple answer that people have already given. Rambo and Rocky Balboa are excellent films and almost universally regarded as on par with the originals or even better.
For me, the mere concept of it being “Star Trek Babies’ is enough to question Abrams’ Trekker credentials.
THX:
What the hell are you talking about? That’s just crazy speculation and I really doubt you came up with an amazing fix in five minutes. Who cares if he’s coming back? They’re starting over.
I didn’t say it was an amazing fix. But there’s many plausible fixes to bring back the Shatner!
Going nerdy for a minute – Kirk died after being trapped in a “Time Traveling Nexus”.
You telling me that if they wanted to incorporate old Kirk into the story as some kind of lynch-pin character for a cameo, they couldn’t? With all the ways different stories use time travel to bring people back from the dead, they couldn’t now? Really?
They’re bringing back Nimoy, why not Shatner?
Truth is, they douched the endings to one of the greatest characters of all time.
They could fix it with this film and do it right, but they won’t because of the egos involved between two men and who knows who else.
And Shatner bears responsibility for signing off on the story and making of Generations in the first place.
And as much as I want to see him get a better send-off in this movie and it’s not going to happen, based on what I know I’m definitely with Team Abrams on this one…
Roth, believe what I’m saying or not. I know who I know, and I know what they told me, and I don’t think I’m sharing anything here that’s going to hurt the film.
Honestly, I have a very good vibe about this movie, Shatner or no.
Edit:
Truth is, they douched the endings to one of the greatest characters of all time. By the way they handled the death of Kirk in “Generations”…
Sorry
It’s not their job to “fix” Generations.
You’re right, it’s not their job. But when dealing with characters like these, you have to respect the entire canon of the story. Especially when you’re using the same character in the current story.
And especially, if you’re going to use one of the original actors who played one of the major characters – vis a vis Nimoy – to proverbially hand the torch off to the new generation for the relaunch of said same characters…
And with the elements they are using in the current film, which I’m going to avoid getting into for spoiler issues…
I still say they used a wasted story opportunity to right a wrong many hard core fans felt were done to the franchise by the way Kirk’s death was handled.
And to just ignore that, but use Kirk as a character is not wrong per say, just wasted potential in my opinion.
Do I even need to put on my Hollywood marketing asshole “suit” and point out the obvious of how many extra dollars having a Shatner cameo in the film would bring in casual movie goers to see Shatner doing his thing one last time?
That awesome character interpretation that has been parodied and immortalized everywhere? Family Guy and Futurama
Casual people would go to see Shatner….Pause….then…SHOUT!..AT HUMANITY’S IDEALS…HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS..as he reasons with the alien menace before firing his phaser and then banging the Orion slave girl.
Who the fuck wouldn’t want to see a geriatric Kirk do that?
Shit, how about the Boston Legal fans who like Shatner from that show that might come to see him do Kirk?
with a Shakespearean cheese that can only be served by the most uniquely gifted of actors…
It’s not going to happen. It is what it is.
Shatner blew it, and that’s it. Even though I’m disappointed, I’m still optimistic Abrams is going to deliver an authentic and worthy Star Trek experience which will hopefully lead to a successful relaunch.
I’d rather try a relaunch than nothing at all.
Look how well it worked for Galactica.
Edit:
*Family Guy and Futurama being two that come to mind..
Damn, sorry for the bad grammar. I’m on a deadline and not really proofing before I post.
Like it or not, what Shatner brings these days is a punchline. He’s gone to the self-parody well too many times. Sure, there are legions of Star Trek fans who’d whoop in the audience at a cameo, but the rest of us would groan, giggle, and/or check our watches for how long the victory lap is going to last before we get to the real movie.
If you’re rebooting the franchise on a mega-budget, hoping to draw in much more than just the converted, I don’t think you can afford a detour like that. Can you imagine Adam West “passing the torch” to Christian Bale in Batman Begins? However much I love me some TV Batman, it’d be ludicrous. Nimoy has done a few self-deprecating cameos on The Simpsons, a Priceline ad, and maybe some others I’m forgetting, but he doesn’t bring nearly the camp baggage that Shatner does. I say don’t let the guy anywhere near that set. Dude didn’t create the franchise, he played a part and got much more career mileage out of it than anyone would have guessed. Nothing is owed.
Adam West did want some kind of “Uncle Batman” cameo in the Tim Burton version, I seem to recall.
“Specifically, on Indy, I think Spielberg was set on the wrong path when he was pushed to be apologetic for the edge of Temple of Doom. ”
Agreed. Signed. Sealed and delivered.
Temple of Doom is vastly underrated. I love the Indy series but would have had no problem had the series continued in this vein. I did not even hate Capshaw like most others. (to a young boy in school, her buxom blonde looks were actually very appealing).
Also agreed on the Schumacher Batman films. Neither are good per se, but on the levels they seek to work on…they have something. They harken back more to the camp of the 60’s Adam West series. As a result, at least there is a context to them so in the history of Batman in culture, they do not stand out as much as people think.
Brandon S,
The Shatner question is one that I get…but at th end of the day, if this is the last chance to see Shatner and Nimoy on screen one last time , then I say roll the dice and let’er go. It seems like to good an opportunity to pass up. I know the fanboys love the thought of a new Trek…but do you really think anyone can replace the originals?
The more Zachary Quinto reminds you of Nimoy, the more you will miss him. I respect why Abrams is leaving Shatner out…but I think it will alienate as many as it brings.
Put another way…if someone thinks Shatner is too campy to do Kirk nowadays…then why would you want to revist the character anyway? The character will only remind you of Shatner.
What too many people forget is that Bond is the exception, not the rule and those transferals of characters worked in the days before VHS and DVD when new generations didn’t connect to the old performers. I loved Roger Moore because I ahd never seen Connery. Now, with DVD…Connery is the best Bond.
That is why recasting Jones, Rambo, etc doesn’t work.
I think the Star Trek reboot will be a hit but underwhelm.
A Man and a Woman: 20 Years Later. No kidding. Once I got over the revelation that the couple didn’t remain a couple after the rapturously romantic finale of the original film, I took great delight in seeing them get back together.
Halloween H2O: The long-delayed ass-kicking revenge of Jamie Lee Curtis left me giddy with joy. Which, of course, is the main reason why I so hated what happened to her in Halloween Resurrection.
The Odd Couple II: No. Sorry, but no.
THX5334,
Here’s your Shatner:
http://www.thesneeze.com/mt-archives/000769.php
I was underwhelmed by Indy IV. I wanted badly to be thrilled and charmed by it. I was hoping Spielberg’s latter-day technique would blow the lid off the franchise. Instead, he barely blew the dust off it. That said, I did enjoy it in the “Eagles reunion concert” sense.
Here’s a poll for this group: Is Indy IV Spielberg’s El Dorado, or Rio Lobo? I vote the former.
Since I think El Dorado is a pretty good movie, I’ll agree.
I have already added my voice to the chorus of praise for Temple of Doom.
I will see the new Trek, but I have no expectation that it will be anything but crap because JJ Abrams is responsible for it. He will alienate far more fans than he brings in.
Re: movielocke’s point about he Shire in LOTR . . . I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I wholeheartedly agree. Look at Frodo: he was so changed by the experience that he literally couldn’t go home again. He journeyed to the West with Gandalf and co. instead because there was no return for him. Anyway, the decision to omit the scourging of the Shire was bollocks from the beginning. We don’t need to invoke Kant to prove that.
I think the most extreme example of not living up to fans’ expectation is the first Mission: Impossible movie – they made Jim Phelps the bad guy! What balls – you almost have to respect that, but it was really just an ego trip for Cruise.
I know, most people under 40 didn’t remember the show, but even with S.W.A.T., they still named the main leader Hondo, even though Samuel L. Jackson didn’t resemble him.
I cannot think of any franchise, remake, adaptation pulling something like that.
If you have no idea what KOTCS is about… keep it in your pocket. Also JVD… IT’S COVERED IN EMOTIONAL HEFT. Go read Cadavra’s or someone else review of KOTCS a few post back. HE explains how much emotional heft this movie has, and how it’s all about finding something when life has already taken so so much from you.
It’s not a movie, but I imagine A LOT of people were more than satisfied by their revisit to Sex and the City.
Wow. Talk about laying blame at the wrong feet.
Shatner said whatever Shatner said. He did NOT say it to us. If we ran the story, it was just as a link to his comments elsewhere.
So how about you lay the responsibility on Shatner, who chose to piss on the current creative team, which is exactly where it belongs?
It’s amazing how people will tie themselves in knots to blame us for all of the world’s ills. I fully expect to show up in the articles of impeachment that Kucinich prepared… just because.
isn’t ’emotional heft’ in a movie completely subjective? you either feel it or you don’t. if you don’t, you can’t be forced or explained into it, just like if you do, no naysayer can take the experience away from you. trying to do either is a monumental waste of time and often ends in the infliction of verbal booboos and hurt feelings, as witnessed around here from time to time…
That’s the rub leah: this emotional heft should not be subjective in terms of the Indy quadrilogy. I am not the only person who understood the importance of Marion Ravenwood in the life of Indiana Jones, but it sure seems like it with the response to this film. Where people seemingly ignore her importance, and how she’s the real TREASURE he has been looking for his entire life. If you are not down with that right there. Well… what are you down with?
SPIELBERG WAS JUST FINE, thank you. What Indy 4 really needed is a better script. That kitchen had way too many cooks in it.
What I found amazing about the ending of INDY 4 was that it was the antithesis of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS–Roy and so many others in the latter film desperately wanted to not just find aliens, but join with them, while in INDY: “We don’t want to go there.” Why not? Does he have some inside knowledge gained during the intervening years, or is it some of that “I like Ike” conservatism preventing him from trying something new?
As for Abrams, considering the atrocious 3-movie arc he had planned for Superman had he been given the reins, his past track record is no guarantee of future excellence.
The ending of Indy 4 is the ending Spielberg has been saying for years he’d give Close Encounters if he made it today – the man choosing to live with his family instead of joyriding around the universe.
IOI, I don’t think anyone is arguing about Marion’s mere presence in the movie, but rather that she (repeating myself here) doesn’t get much to do. She’s not the same feisty, hard-drinking lady we remember from Raiders and it’s a(nother) flaw in the script.
It woulda been so much better, tho, if Indy had a hankering to go (maybe they’d offer life extension and a chance to see what’s been powering the magic behind so many of his discoveries), but when he looked back and saw that Marion and Spot, err, Mutt didn’t feel the same, then maybe he’d change his mind and flee with them.
“what’s been powering the magic behind so many of his discoveries”
Like tiny creatures that live in one’s blood?
And the aliens could take him to a cantina to meet with a tall dude covered with gray yeti fur who seems to remember his face….
jeffmcm,
I think it’s even more fun to view Spalko’s demise as the coup de grace to the Columbia execs who insisted on seeing the inside of the spaceship for the 1980 Special Edition.
SPALKO: “I can see! I can see!”
ALIEN/SPIELBERG: “Not if I burn your fucking eyes out!”
Jeff: nice of you to need a character in her 40s to be as she was in her 20s. Seriously… it’s this line of thinking that makes me really feel… a gas-face. However, really, Indy does not need to go with aliens because HE FOUND WHAT HE WAS LOOKIN FOR IN A FAMILY! Come the fuck on. It cannot be that hard.
Marian had grown up. Would Indy? was the question. Or I should say, Would Indy accept that he had grown up?
I thought Spalko should have gone with the aliens. That way she’d get what she wanted (the knowledge), but in a way that made it totally useless to her.
IOI, I think that the difference between what you’re talking about and what others – including myself – are talking about is the difference between concept and execution.
Indy might have also not gone with the alines because they wanted to burn his face off.
Also, Marion didn’t need to act like she was in her 20s…but maybe she could have been treated like a character with interesting things to do, instead of basically being a prop?
Has anyone read the Darabont script? I haven’t, but it sounds like she might have had more to do in it.
Spalko going off with the aliens would have produced a reaction not unlike the ending of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN: the audience gets pissed off because the bad guy doesn’t die in some spectacular fashion.