MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

It

Two things that has stuck out for me in the Ebert Show exit coverage. First, there is very little discussion taking into account that Roger has now been off the air for two years. His exit from the show, given his physical limitations (specifically his lack of voice), has been a reality for a while. There has been hope, but Roger has been

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “It”

  1. Wrecktum says:

    You’ve written more about this non-issue than the prospective SAG strike and the Dark Knight put together.

  2. David Poland says:

    Thanks for the insightful comment, Wrecktum.

  3. jeffmcm says:

    Regardless, I am curious to know what the current state of the SAG negotiations are since that affects my and many of my friends’ livelihood.

  4. David Poland says:

    The current state of SAG negotiations are a stalemate.
    SAG doesn’t have the issue to strike over… AMPTP won’t really care until they strike… the industry is a bit shut down, but I wouldn’t say we are in a de facto strike or lockout at this point.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    Thanks, DP, now I don’t need to go to you-know-who’s site.
    Although it seems like at least a half-lockout because there are productions not starting out of a sense of uncertainty, right? Still off subject, I know…

  6. cjKennedy says:

    It’s lame that Ebert was forced out, but I’m having a hard time dwelling on the negative here. The show ceased being vital when Siskel died. No offense to Ebert at all, it’s just that Roeper was no Siskel. He didn’t have that essential chemistry and he isn’t nearly as smart.
    As much as I loved Siskel & Ebert, the innovation of “the thumbs” was one of the worst things to happen to film criticism.
    Roger continues as a writer where he is frankly the most interesting.

  7. Hallick says:

    The show was done for whether Roeper had been chosen or not. If he wasn’t there for anything else, his presence drew attention away from the structural decrepitude of the show. The reviews were truncated, the clips were shorter, you’d see the same damn thing come up three weeks running (“let’s watch an even SHORTER version of our review of this movie two weeks ago”). If Gene and Roger had never become ill, and the show was like this, we’d all be bitching that it was time for the pair to hang it all up and shut it all down.

The Hot Blog

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