MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Thursday, pre=Bruno

Be Sociable, Share!

27 Responses to “BYOB Thursday, pre=Bruno”

  1. anghus says:

    OK. I gotta say it. I LOATHED the Christmas Carol trailer. Just awful. I hate the visual style of Zemeckis’ animated stuff.
    But this one just irritated the hell out of me on a whole new level. They take this classic story and turn it into broad comedy. Watch Scrooge flail and fly at breakneck speed. I never thought the appeal of this story was the frantic pace.
    It just looks awful.

  2. doug r says:

    Hello! Waasup!

  3. doug r says:

    Are any of the penises blue?

  4. anghus says:

    scrooge’s nose looked a little penis-y

  5. scooterzz says:

    i wonder how many headline variations we’ll see re: the jodie foster/mel gibson movie over the next 24 hours…….

  6. leahnz says:

    the mind boggles
    “gibson hopes to have a hand in foster’s BEAVER”

  7. Bruno looks like it’ll be a hit in Australia. Opening day was quite large (especially for a Wednesday). Does anybody know what the general consensus is for US opening weekend?

  8. SJRubinstein says:

    THR article on studios and their relationship with the fansites:
    The funny thing is, I remember before-before the time Devin Faraci mentions (when online sites were most recently relegated to the “misc” room at junkets) when some studios and publicists actually thought fan-journos were some new kind of rock star with legions of “underground fans.”
    There was a whole learning curve about how some sites got “more traffic” than others, but it made for an interesting time.

  9. SJRubinstein says:

    What I mean is that you’d get some big, A-list one-on-one (Clooney, Brad Pitt, James Cameron, whoever) and the chances of any more than a couple hundred (or even a couple dozen) people reading it were next to nil.

  10. don lewis (was PetalumaFilms) says:

    This THR article on online sites has effectively, and rather sweetly laid out EVERYTHING that’s wrong with CHUD, AICN and every other branch of the studio P.R. arm.
    They basically say in the opening paragraph that they figured out if you suck up to these people, you can get good buzz out of them. Fly them to set, have them chat with actors and directors, put them up in a nice hotel…suddenly they LOVE everything about your film.
    To quote from the article;
    “The key is to get them rooting for your film because when you’re making evangelists out of these very trusted sources, it can be very effective to work with these guys.”
    “We’ll sometimes identify who the leaders or the administrators are and give them special opportunities because they can communicate directly with fans,” says Jack Pan, executive vp marketing at Summit Entertainment”
    Yet they all consider themselves objective journalists.
    Hey, I’m all for access on sets to writers and whatnot. I wouldn’t take the ride, but that’s just me. However I then think then you’re officially OFF the review of the film when it comes out.

  11. The Big Perm says:

    Zemeckis needs to get his ass back to making live action movies. In live action, he was a genius. These lame cartoons he’s making are pathetic.

  12. The Big Perm says:

    Oh, and it’s funny that the Hollywood Reporter had that article, and then I stopped by CHUD and there’s a Zombieland set visit! I didn’t read it but I wonder if they’re excited to see that hilarious and amazingly groundbreaking movie?

  13. jeffmcm says:

    It’s nice to see that Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster have maintained a friendly relationship despite all that’s happened over the years.

  14. martin says:

    I wouldn’t go so far as to call the recent animations he’s done as “pathetic”, but I agree that live-action was his strong suit. These are essentially tech experiments on the studios dime. For the most part they’ve at least made their money back, so no ones complaining. Even that Harrison Ford ghost movie was more interesting than these recent efforts. As I said though, I think that these are more artistic experimentations than real stories that he wants to tell. Last good Zemeckis movie was probably Gump.

  15. The Big Perm says:

    I loved What Lies Beneath!
    But yeah, these animations seem like tech experiments. And that’s why to me they’re pathetic, because he’s playing around with toys and not making movies with interesting stories or characters. I would have liked to see a Beowulf live action movie, not that horrible slop Zemeckis served up.

  16. Crow T Robot says:

    It’ll be nice to see Mad Mel in front of the camera again.
    I thought he gave one of the great/underrated performances of the 1990s in Conspiracy Theory.

  17. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Disturbing story post-LAFF: Dole Foods goes “Bananas!*” with a SLAPP suit against the director of that documentary.
    (Don’t worry about the web address — the story is in English.)

  18. anghus says:

    Ryan Reynolds is Green Lantern.
    Thank you ticket buyers of The Proposal.

  19. Joe Leydon says:

    Anghus: Do you recall the initial reaction some people had to the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman? Actually, if recall the ’60s comic books, Reynolds is not at all a bad choice for the Hal Jordan/Green Lantern character.

  20. Joe Leydon says:

    Should read: If I recall the ’60s comic books…

  21. don lewis (was PetalumaFilms) says:

    He’s a bad choice because….
    1. He can’t carry a film
    2. He’s already in Blade 3 AND the Wolverine movie AND is DEADPOOL in that movie

  22. But isn’t Zemeckis’ best film the one that mixed live action with animation? hello Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
    Conclusion: Zemeckis should make more live action/animation hybrids.

  23. yancyskancy says:

    I know Jon Hamm isn’t box office yet, but shouldn’t somebody be trying to cast him as a superhero already? Not a lot of square-jawed, masculine, name actors out there to choose from.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    If I remember correctly, the complaint against Michael Keaton as Batman was that he didn’t fit the ’80s mold of the action hero – tall, muscular, super-macho. Instead he was this kind of oddball, cerebral guy, which worked because it launched the modern trend of superhero casting – cast for the secret identity, not the ‘hero’.
    I’m not familiar enough with Hal Jordan to know anything about his non-Green Lantern identity, but it seems like Reynolds fits more of the old-fashioned/traditional superhero mold, in that he’s incredibly ripped and good-looking.

  25. anghus says:

    Joe, i didn’t mean for that to sound negative.
    I actually dig Reynolds and am happy about the choice. I was just suggesting a hit movie with female appeal is what helped him land the role.
    I liked the Proposal. It was ‘not awful’, which by romantic comedy standards is impressive.

  26. anghus says:

    And on the subject of the THR piece about fansites.
    At this point who hasn’t figured out that the Chuds of the world are populated by sycophants desperate to cross over to the other side of the business?
    If you show them the slightest bit of attention, if you email them personally with updates, if you form a relationship they will spin everything positive. They don’t ask the hard questions. They don’t care about anything other than sitting at the cool kids table at lunch. Psychologically, it’s fascinating.
    The fact that it took longer than 8 seconds for a studio to break the code shows you how fucking stupid people are.

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