MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

3 Tidbits

Ted Hope tweets, “NYC is considering a $3200 fee for filming in city owned buildings. This is a bad idea when we need to attract more movies here.”
=========

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Responses to “3 Tidbits”

  1. LexG says:

    That NYC building thing:
    UGH. I know I already wrote a long piece about it, but I really do miss that 70s, 80s NYC vibe in film.
    And for 10 years it was that cheap, clunky, shot-in-Canada look that marred 60% of studio films, all set in the forest and shit…
    Now it’s all these mid-sized U.S. cities offering insane tax breaks… so we’re getting *big action movies* set in such ever-cinematic locales as Shreveport, Ann Arbor, and rural Western Pennsylvania. I think I’ve seen 30 movies shot in Pittsburgh in the last 12 months alone.
    Nothing against any of those places really, but what was that old Ebert line about “He’s a Toronto cop on the edge…” not having the same kick as NY, Chicago or LA? Similarly seems a little underwhelming to have big gunfights in the mean streets of Shreveport or Denzel chasing runaway trains through rural Ohio.

  2. RP says:

    $197 for WSJ online now. Wasn’t happy about that sticker shock (up from $119last year) when the automatic renewal charge showed up on my statement with no advance warning (although they claim they mailed letters). Couldn’t cancel fast enough.

  3. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Newsday on Long Island has announced that its website is going behind a paywall. Home-delivery subscribers and those whose ISP is (corporate cousin) Optimum Online will get unlimited access. Everyone else will have to pay $5 per week.
    To make things even better, the paywall goes up on Wednesday, October 28 — the first day of the World Series. Splendid timing for all the Yankee fans out there.

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