MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

More Futurism

I actually think this is a bit absurd and when I got my annual note about the countdown to the new Potter trailer, I rolled my eyes and started thinking about writing about how I think that this kind of countdown stuff is reaching its point of cultural irrelevance… much the same feeling I have – with due respect to a site and a staff I really do respect and appreciate – when I get my fifth indieWIRE alert of the day about some tiny distributor picking up some tiny film for the cost of a lunch and a print… at some point, all the “must see now” alerts become “must wait til it happens to float past me.”
However, I haven’t seen this specific kind of thing before… and so I post…

6:03p – And now… after the trailer ran… looks like another Potter film… it seems that all they left behind was a noisy/cute Hulu promo every time someone loads the page… and no repeat viewing option for the trailer… hmmm….

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “More Futurism”

  1. mutinyco says:

    This embed will self-destruct in 5-4-3-2…

  2. Tofu says:

    This will be the sixth official trailer for this film, and yet here I am, pumped up due to a countdown.
    What can I say, Countingdown.com used to be a vice of mine.

  3. LYT says:

    Good trailer. But I fear it gives away all the money shots in the movie.

  4. Hulu = IN THE BIN!
    (I fear nobody on here will get that joke, but just know that it is hilarious.)

  5. leahnz says:

    well, i don’t get it (unless it’s the sin bin)

  6. Josh Massey says:

    Great trailer. I know it’s popular to bag on this series, but the last three have been extremely solid. I’m still surprised – and a little weary – that they managed to get a PG-rating from that book.

  7. Warner really knows what it’s doing. As if to assuage the fears of fans over the PG rating, this trailer is cut like an R-rated supernatural thriller, with many of the frightening images that fans were afraid would be cut. Book 6 was one of the best in the series, and this looks shockingly good, even for this remarkably consistent series. For reasons I won’t even hint at, I still cannot wait to watch the climax of part 6 in a crowded theater and see the reaction of those who haven’t read the book.

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