MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Saturday's Poll

(The story where these quotes and many other idiocies can be read.)
Results after the jump…

Be Sociable, Share!

19 Responses to “Saturday's Poll”

  1. Crow T Robot says:

    “Which “insight” is the clearest expression of a wannabe film critic “not getting it?””
    – I have never broken an embargo with Warners and feel no need to do so here. It is just a frickin’ movie.
    – I

  2. David Poland says:

    How clever, Crow.
    What are you actually saying?
    That I have broken an embargo at WB?
    That I can’t appreciate the film on its own merits?
    That I don’t want to be able to do my job without the bias of a ton of media response to the film (pro and con) before seeing it?
    That the money is not the most important thing to WB?
    If you have any balls or brains at all, step up and say something. All too often, you just turn up here to act like a punk. Prove me wrong.

  3. Roman says:

    What a waste. Instead of spending all this space attacking Lyons for the nth time, why not, instead, turn the attention to sorry state of the online film criticism in general. I cannot possibly be the only one who thinks that absolute majority of online critics are absolutely terrible and longs for the days when Rotten Tomatoes didn’t exist.
    In the old days the situation wasn’t great but at least salaries and editors kept absolute idiots out. I’m all for free speach but it comes at a high cost of noise and hatred than I’d rather pay for a newspaper.
    I’m not attacking every who writes for the web, of course. A lot of these people are talented and genuinly intelligent. Most aren’t though and it would ok (and totally understandable) if I actually had a choice of having a print critic I wouldn’t have to worry about losing job because of the easy availability of online “reviews”.
    And I’d take Lyon’s amateurishness and lack of reverence (or simple foolishness) over the dismissiveness and elitism that dominates the web any day. He’s not the problem and even if he shares most of the same symptoms, at least he’s relatively good natured and doesn’t pretend to be something he isn’t.
    And let’s just openly admit that Ben Mankiewicz, sadly isn’t much better either or instead we’d run a risk of geniunly looking jealous.
    And while I’m at it – Watchmen poll is stupid too in that it correlates high openings with final grosses and fundamentally misses the whole idea of high openings a steep drops (there’s not a single option to represent that). I’m not saying Watchmen doesn’t have a potential to have solid holds – it just doesn’t seem right not to consider the risk that it doesn’t.

  4. christian says:

    When I look at these polls, I see the word TWIT…

  5. a_loco says:

    Roman, the Watchmen poll covers domestic opening weekend and final WORLDWIDE gross, so it does account for steep drops. That said, DP should have realized how confusing that correlation was.

  6. David Poland says:

    I think you have a reasonable argument to make about focus, Roman, but I am a bit baffled by your concern for “all this space” and for the “noise” of the web.
    If you don’t want to hear it, why do you click on it?
    “absolute majority of online critics” means what? People with jobs or people with personal sites who find a way to weasel into RT?
    I am completely in agreement that the “every opinion is worth airing” attitude is dumb and is part of the core of my concerns about things like test screening reviews as well.
    But aren’t we “dumbing down” criticism in bigger media as well? The AP has more eyeballs reading their criticism every week than At The Movies or anyone else, really. Should they be The National Critics? I am not running down Christy or Dave, but circumstances being what they are, the AP “critic” slot has become the most powerful – if critics have power (another discussion) – critics slot in the nation.
    At MCN, we’re soon to launch what I found to be some rather shocking insight into the status of critics in this country.
    But Lyons, who I generally don’t pay attention to, fully aware that I will never see him review or his his opinion about a film again after 2011, gets discussion space because of the job… just as Roeper before him, who was just as arrogant and ignorant of film.
    I have always said, the sad part of Roeper, as it is now with Lyons, is that they will never use the opportunity to do anything to help or support the medium. They are people who would be just as happy hosting a game show.
    I don’t watch At The Movies more than once every few months to check in. But Lyons and Disney went out of their way to try to position his failure as a success yet again… and what does Lyons do? He says stupid, ignorant shit again.
    Finally, as for the polls, I am, as I wrote yesterday, trying it out… it and all Twitter-focused notions in here will continue to be an effort-in-progress for the next few weeks.

  7. Roman says:

    Good point a-loco, I retract my Watchmen comment.
    I glanced at the word final and I guess I just assumed it meant domestic. My bad and I’ll try to be more careful in the future.

  8. T. Holly says:

    Ben and Ben aren’t worth the time it takes to realize they have nothing to contribute to understanding any film, that you become angry within the 5 minutes it takes them to proclaim whether you should go or skip the movie. Fuck them. Seriously, I’d rather listen to Heil Limbaugh spew his insanity.

  9. Roman says:

    Allow me to adress a few of your comments:
    “If you don’t want to hear it, why do you click on it?”
    Now you are getting to the core of the problem. I cannot avoid it. There’s simply too much of it around and believe me I’ve already consciously cut down on the number of things I’m clicking on. And as someone who simply needs to read articles to stay informed I find the whole process of finding sources annoying. Everytime I feel like I’m safe it pops up at me and smacks me right in the head (or punches me much lower). Funny thing is that I didn’t used to care this much so I don’t know if it’s my own sensabilities that changed or if the situation has indeed gotten much worse.
    And even if I avoided the Internet completely, this kind of attitide has already slipped into the real world culture and affected the people around me. Those with starved brains are easy enough to identify – they are the easily impressed and whiny. That’s what saddens me the most.
    The biggest paradox of the whole let every voice be heard approach is that a lot of voices, usually suprising sane ones, get drowned because mob thinking developes very quickly. This too, makes the process of finding someone intelligent to listen to, very difficult.
    “But aren’t we “dumbing down” criticism in bigger media as well?”
    The bigger media seems to follow the lead of the likes of bigger online names in approach and they seem to chase Nikki Finki in attitude. AP, is becoming as bad as anyone else.
    You brough up the whole issue of power (and responsibility) and, that too me, is the most importatn and complicated issue related to criticism epsecially in the relation to the future as movie infrostructure still continue to adapt to the Internet.
    “At MCN, we’re soon to launch what I found to be some rather shocking insight into the status of critics in this country.”
    This is why I look forward to reading reading this article(?) and hope that it’s an insightful and objective expose.
    It might be a matter of taste but I never had a big problem with Roeper. Too me his a guy who represented a good mix of a critic and page 6 entertainment columninst. People constanly compare him with Siskel, and, as a result, call him toothless but I feel that for all his shortcomings he has good insticts. So while he would not necessarily to a good job depefending or attacking a particular film, that fact alone made his opinions hold some worth.

  10. T. Holly says:

    Roman, there’s nothing wrong with having stuff in one place and Metacritic is better because they care more about the work. I have a problem with any critic ordering me to go or to skip a movie, which being in front of a camera seems to bring out. If you value your time, stick to the news holes, which are never going to be more than several paragraphs long anyway, by a few you know who are able to say something worthwhile in that amount of space (it’s interesting to see themes emerge) and check out some P.R. and blogs and then get on with your bad ass life.

  11. Roman says:

    Holly, I don’t think you understood my point. In a perfect world I would have nothing against aggregate sites like Metacritic and am perfectly willing to agree that having “stuff in one place” is convenient and useful. Still, I merely wanted to aknowelege the unplesant side effect that such convenience may brings, that’s all. I also want to say absolute majority of my objections would disappear if they implemented a better screening for their critics. This goes back to the whole “not every opinion is worth airing” debate but I would argue that a guy with a web site does not a critic make. That’s how useful things start getting progressively less so.
    I remember disliking the whole cream of the crop circle that RT used to have but now that they’ve done away with it I kind of miss it. I agree that Metacritic is better but I would have much preffered it they did better job assigning their scores. I know, more sour grapes.
    I want to also make it clear that my beef isn’t just with criticism, but, also, the online commentary and articles of speculative nature that are so common everywhere. It becomes impossible to find someone praise on things without putting something else down but I digress…
    Also, how does my limiting my own browsing activities (which is somewhat of ridiculous solution in itself) aid the actual problem of what’s happening online? ( kind of hate how this sentence makes me sound so I appologize for that).

  12. LexG says:

    BEN LYONS OWNS. I saw a picture of him posing with KEIRA KNIGHTLEY and that’s a BILLION TIMES more important than being a CRITIC WITH INTEGRITY.
    Shit, if I were a critic I’d just go to all the junkets to meet FAMOUS SQUACK then I’d go back to the hotel room and handle business when the interview was over.

  13. Crow T Robot says:

    Know thyself, blogger.

  14. christian says:

    I hate Twitter.

  15. Blackcloud says:

    I’d never seen it before. I kinda wish that were still the case.

  16. movieman says:

    Feel free to “run down” Christy Lemiere, Dave…I can’t think of anyone (besides Ben Lyons perhaps) who deserves a good thrashing more.

  17. David Poland says:

    Your arrogance is only eclipsed by your anonymity, Crow.
    Meanwhile, Roman and THolly actually had something to say, provoked by this silly poll.
    Get a little perspective.

  18. IHeartThatCurtis! says:

    Perspective? Sort of like Nikki and Ben blow, and you rule? Just checking. I am fresh out of perspective and chock full of reflection!

  19. T. Holly says:

    I was going to share my tweets at the poll with you, but twitter is over capacity right now and not letting me enter. It’s tweeted out.

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