May 11, 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
Really? It’s one thing to call other critics out on laziness in their writing, but comparing a possible actors union strike to decisions made by our government that ended up costing thousands of American lives, not to mention the lives lost in the Middle East? How self-indulgent do you want to be? I feel bad for anyone who loses their job, but that is nothing compared to the sympathy I have for the families of people involved in a war that is not ending anytime in the near future. Even if our government decides that we are pulling out ASAP, it will be years before American troops are out of Iraq. Whether or not Obama or McCain would have won, we are stuck in Iraq for at least five years-how long would a possible actors strike last, and would that be any different than the auto workers who are destined to be out of jobs in the next six months? I don’t think you can argue that if the actors go on strike, like our troops went to war, that they will be forced into continued strike-mode, against their will, as our troops have been with mandatory re-deployment.
For all the praise you have had in the last six months for Obama, for understanding (or at least pretending too-we’ll find out) things that George Bush and his administration obviously didn’t, it is extremely disappointing to see you compare the possible temporary loss of jobs in an industry to a war that will go down as the most unnecessary and unpopular war since Vietnam.
You’re a good writer-stick to what you know, and please don’t write another ironic piece about how actors voting to keep or suspend their jobs compares with a war that costs billions of dollars and kills thousands.
Uh…
I don’t know how to deal with all that anger over a metaphor.
I am obviously not comparing a shooting war to an actor’s strike in any direct way. But the comparison of how one event is similar to another in how a situation can get out of hand and beyond control is perfectly reasonable.
Please go purchase Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. If you think, after reading it, that it applies only to war in a literal way, we will just have to stand on other sides of the highway of learning.
There are lessons – important lessons – to be learned from history. And the history of war must teach us about more than just war.
I’m sure this just hit you funny… but really…
Metaphor or not-wtf? Thanks for insulting me over a book about waging a war. I have read that book, and I think you are over-analyzing an ego-driven industry based on a book that was written over a thousand years ago.
In my opinion, Sun-Tzu would be insulted that you think his ideas apply to your industry. If anything, he would be the first person to insist that actors not get paid millions of dollars, because actors in a Sun-Tzu society are expendable. Sun-Tzu only had a use for people who were not only willing to die for their ideals, but had no use for anything outside of that logic.
Pardon me, but it doesn’t seem to me like a lot of celebrities (or journalists), think that way at this point. Why would anyone pay an actor millions of dollars a year to star in a production when one doesn’t know if that actor will be alive the next day (in his society, those people wouldn’t even exist!)? What use would Sun-Tzu have for actors in the first place? His entire logic is the basis for “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs”, and the basis for that would eliminate the entertainment industry. “The Art of War” is based on the idea that everyone is expendable, so how do you relate that to Hollywood in any way? Comparing a country at war to an industry that chooses to go on strike?
Maybe I was stretching and maybe I was just angry because you chose a metaphor that is way too close to home. But the fact that you chose the original metaphor so casually, and the fact that you dismiss me so easily, tells me that you have zero perspective on people involved in our conflicts overseas.
I’m sure you will come back at me and say that you have had friends/relatives that you know who are in Iraq. However, if that is the case, all the more shame on you for coming up with a movie industry metaphor, based on their struggles. Both of us like Obama, and have the best hopes for him. I don’t think he would ever compare the film industry vs. Iraq, nor Detroit vs. Iraq. I think (and hope) he would have more perspective than you have shown. I have had several friends who have been stationed in Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit and Ramaldi, and they could give two shits about the film industry.
You were very proactive in your lobbying for Obama in the quest for change over the last few months. Whether or not they agreed with your politics, I know that your metaphor in comparing their plight to the actors plotting strike in Hollywood, is inappropriate.
Even as a joke-I don’t get it. You go after Finke and other journalists for far less. Maybe this did just hit me wrong. But I’ve been reading you for years, and this dismissal of my ideas composed of everything in my life, did ‘hit me funny’.
What can I tell you, Jack Walsh? I use Sun Tzu to explain how deal with each other on line at Starbucks.
Sun Tzu deals, in my opinion, primarily with understanding power relationships and the navigation of same, whether in war, business, sex or the movie business. If there is a Golden Rule in the book, it is to know your enemy’s and – even more importantly – your own strengths and weaknesses.
Rosenberg, under pressure, is playing a game of chicken with the careers of others. Does he know what he can get with a strike? Does he know how strong the other side’s hand is? Is there a threat that he can plausibly stop?
Of course, being an actor is not putting your life on the line as a soldier. But if your career is in danger, no matter how fluffy you think it might be, it matters to you. All politics are local.
If you really think all of this is so meaningless, why would you ever read me or anyone else about it?
I’m sorry it bothers you so. I did NOT compare the plight of solidiers in Iraq to anything. I didn’t mention soldiers. The use of the metaphor was not about soldiers. It was about politics.
It’s not really a joke. And again, it has NOTHING to do with the soldiers anywhere in the world. It wasn’t like I said the potential SAG strike was like an IED waiting to blow up in the face of soldiers or anything at all to do with troops. It was about the leaders and the leaders only.
And no, I have never gone after Finke or anyone else for odd metaphors… only for malicious spin and/or falsehoods.
You seem very earnest and honorable, so I don’t want to be an ass about it. But really… I think you are fighting a fight I am not in.
Anyway… sorry it pissed you off so.
Excuse me, mr Poland, I’m a little confused about your position on the matter.
Are you saying you believe that actors that work maybe 4 weeks out of the year (I’m being generous about the shooting schedule for 4 guest appearence on an hour drama) are entitled to make 64.000 a year? You mean, that actor to which I don’t even know the name, that can be easly substitute with, oh, I don’t know, maybe 10.000 other of his colleagues, just needs to work ONE month out of the year and he’s entitled to be set?
Am I reading you correctly?
Are you saying that even though the market share is shrinking, certain guilds expect to be paid the same, if not even more that before?
Well, no wonder the number of shows are diminishing, running away from LA and the studios are operating in the red. Seems like certain guilds are itching to precipitate the demise of the TV landscape.
I keep asking myself, if they don’t like the contract the studio offers, what’s stopping them from producing shows themselves?
They could then enjoy 100% of the “New Media” bounty, no?
If they are so sure it’s their god given talent which is responsible for the studio’s “windfall”, then shouldn’t they act upon it and risk their own fortune?
But alas, vanity, working on the weak mind, can produce any sort of mischief.
Hey, I bought that Sun Tzu “Art of War” book once. Wesley Snipes wasn’t even in it.
Fuckin’ ripoff.
(ZING.)
Oy.
So everyone needs to be a grip to be worthy of making a living?
Working actors – as opposed to the mega-dollar players, in front of and behind the camera – are not causing studios to lose money.
And you talk about actors like they are just sitting around on their ass, not wanting to work… like it is their choice.
An hour-long episode costs anywhere between $1.5 million and $3 million to produce. A top show generates, in one showing, more than $10 million in advertising. The producing studio is, generally, working at a deficit of hundreds of thousands per episode. But the DVD profits have, in recent years, been in the millions per episode. And that is without worldwide syndication and other exploitation.
You sound a little like the guy who hates professional athletes because they make too much money.
Who should get the money? And do you really believe that
Ok, for the record, Jack Walsh is not me. I’m just not that well read. But he brings out Lawyer Dave (the long defensive rants) which is always fascinating to read.
And real quick… “4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days” was easily the best movie of the year… the first 20 minutes of Indiana Jones 4 was the most enjoyable… Penelope Cruz gave my favorite performance… yes, Oscars are still stupid and shame on you for caring… Drew taking my advice and moving out of AICN is a beautiful thing… and the plot to thump George Bush with a shoe should have been called “Operation: Kill Da Wabbit.”
Next year will be better. I know it. You people have a lover-ly holiday.
Except, this time the studios have as much to lose as the actors.
With the state of the economy, the nose dive in ratings again this year at the networks, another flat year of DVD sales and declining theatrical admissions, AMPTP is not in the position they were in last year. There’s no more fat to trim to keep profits up.
Personally, I’ve love for a strike to take a flamethrower to the industry. Watching them try to deal with new media is like watching an aircraft carrier try to make a hairpin turn. Entire thing needs to be rebuilt from the top down and there’s too many who worked too long and hard at the top to take that risk voluntarily.
“There’s no more fat to trim to keep profits up.
”
That’s exactly what NBC Universal is doing with the Leno move. He will act in the same way as Dateline did in the nineties and that reality programing did in this decade. Not as actual programing but as spackle. The networks are going to move to an HBO, FX, USA strategy that puts cheap filler on the air between the three decent shows they have that will draw viewers.
As Dave has mentioned earlier this will screw SAG as there will be less traditional programing but what programing there is will be sold to the cable networks that the studios own to be repeated endlessly. The studios have more than enough content to fill their ancillary channels for eternity even if they switch their networks to seven hours of original scripted programs weekly. The coming constriction of capital will not affect the bosses nearly as much as it will hurt the employees.
SAG’s saber-rattling created a
major reaction, especially among AMPTP members. Part of it has to do with the transition to digital and hi-def.