May 18, 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
I think it’s lame but it’s says it’s an “advertorial” right on the front page so I guess it’s not “problematic.” In my mind the problem arises if a review is given to the film because if it’s a positive review, the purchased ad space from the studio makes me suspect.
yeah… I echo the 1st person’s comment. as long as it screams “ADVERTORIAL” then I ain’t got a problem with it. Anyway, a lot of websitse would be dead if it wasn’t for paid advertising.
Problematic only in the sense that they’re making the site irrelevant by giving it over to pointless content.
The bad layout and over-clutter of this web page is what should be problematic to them.
Admittedly I don’t know much about advertising, but why would an advertiser or studio add a “Saw” movie ad to a site like CHUD? Like any regular reader of CHUD is unaware that a new “Saw” movie is coming. If they wanna waste money, it’s their all but makes no sense to me.
It’s like a free newspaper giving over its front page to a paid advertisment. Just screams “WHORE!”, is all.
Anyone else getting a kick out of how a certain loudmouth, know-it-all, bullying, soap box preacher on the ethics and morals of film writers at CHUD was railing against SlashFilm and other sites doing these “advertorials” only to have one land on his doorstep? Heh heh heh.
What’s sad is that the writer didn’t even take the time to write an actual retrospective of the long running series. The discussion about the series that we partook in last week on this blog had more depth and insight than that ‘essay’. The thing on the front page could have been written by reading the back of each DVD box and spending 30 seconds on Box Office Mojo.
from what little i can see the writer of the ‘retrospective’ certainly is problematic, starting off too informally by using the interjection “Well”, as if in mid conversation or thinking out loud, and then the grammar just goes downhill from there with “this Friday sees the release of Saw…” (friday can’t see, it’s a day not a sighted being, nor should it be the subject of the sentence, that would be ‘Saw’), followed by the use of the extraneous preposition “and” to start the second paragraph. who writes this stuff, grade school kids? do people actually get paid to write so poorly?
Because SAW fans care about grammar.
i guess not! (a little copy editing goes a long way)
I do think it’s problematic. Devin took heat for this yesterday on Twitter, but it wasn’t his call, and it’s not his article, so I think the anger was misplaced. I think Nick Nunziata should know better at this point in CHUD’s lifecycle. I find it distasteful at the very least to publish an “article” that was paid for specifically by a studio, and I think even when it is clearly labeled, it is a line that I would never want to cross.
I have heard all the defenses of the practice, but none of them convince me. I think this is part of that slippery slope we speak of sometimes, and it just erodes further any confidence readers have that your opinion is entirely yours, free of financial duress.