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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
Good for Ebert, he deserves the attention.
On the other hand, Harry Knowles in second place? WTF?!
What Harry lacks in quality, he makes up in quantity…
Cheap shots aside – going to have to know more about how they define and measure “buzz” before anything insightful can be drawn.
Harry’s a recognizable face on a website that he contributes less than 10% of the content. When you see those blurbs on ads for films that says AINT IT COOL NEWS, it’s usually written by a contributor or a random anonymous test screen reviewer.
He started the site, is branded with it, his animated mug showing up on every page. But most of the heavy lifting over the last 10 years has been due to contributors, both regular staff and anonymous fans.
The fact that the perception of Harry’s role as a “critic” is even that influential is funny. I wonder how Drew feels about seeing something like this, seeing as his reviews and posts were most responsible for generating industry discussions and creating the “buzz”.
Harry had all but vanished from the site for years until he left for HitFix.
Oh, and for the record:
Kenneth Turan
Todd McCarthy
Manohla Dargis
Stephen Hunter
Is it wrong that I have no idea who these people are.
Love seeing the EW “critics” getting a combined .01%.
anghus, Manohla Dargis is a critic for the Nytimes. Kenneth Turan writes for the Latimes, Todd McCarthy writes for Variety.
Maybe I should have used “noise” instead…
Enough ripping on Harry – the site was done by movie lovers for movie lovers, and if nothing else contributed a heck of a lot to creating a dialogue with fans instead of holding them at arms length (it can be argued that the needle swung too far towards pandering, but you get that some times).
There’s a Hunter Stephenson on Slashfilm – given how they butchered Lisa Schwartzbaum’s name it’s not beyond the realms of possibility they did it again (although I really don’t think Slashfilm would rank that high, and it begs the question of how accurate is the datamining if they can’t spell the names correctly – assuming it’s not Weeeeee Mk2).
im not bagging on Harry. Just stating that a majority of aicn content is provided by people other than harry. thats not a shot or conjecture but a fact.
Stephen Hunter is a novelist (Shooter is based on one of his books) and film critic for The Washington Post.
The survey follows buzz from Nov. 2008 through Nov. 2009. I believe Hunter stopped writing for the Post well before Nov. 2008. Ann Hornaday then became the lead Post critic.
Yeah I wasn’t 100% sure if Hunter was still at the Wash Post or not. I believe he was there for quite a long time though.
“Enough ripping on Harry” was directed at me, not you. š
Man… I feel slow though, didn’t connect the dots that the novelist Stephen Hunter was also a film critic. Shows how much attention I pay to the WaPo.
Knowles and Ebert are the only two on the list that actually do original web-only content, right?
No surprise they’d be top two, then.
I’m also not sure exactly how one would get “buzz,” from, say, Kenneth Turan. By the time he reviews something, it’s already out. And that’s not a dis on Turan; just saying day-and-date reviewers are really never a source of “buzz” to me.
They misspelled Gleiberman’s name, too.
Anghus, it may not be “wrong,” but it is surprising that a regular contributor here wouldn’t recognize some of those names. Turan and Dargis especially are mentioned here with some frequency.
Harry Knowles is not a film critic. He expresses his opinion, but has very little skill at writing thoughtful criticism.
His “reviews” are kind of amazing for their lack of structure. He is incapable of sustaining any one point or observation. Knowles is a glorified blogger who knew how to market himself.
Debating who showed play a paricualr superhero or should write the remaker/re-boot/re-inagining of a comic-book/TV show/franchise is not the same as serious film discussions.
the names dont remotely ring a bell. and im a guy who frequents a dozen or more film sites per da for over 10 years. The fact that they havent come across my radar may be indicative of what a piss poor job theyve done making their presence known online.
Jimmy – but this poll isn’t about serious film discussion, per se. It’s about “buzz.”
And Harry & co. tend to get that first.
Or, anghus, it could indicate that you’re not really paying attention to all those websites you[ve been visiting over the past 10 years.
Surely you own a copy of the Fight Club DVD? Remember the the commentary track ehere Norton keeps bringing up the critics who dismissed the movie? He mentions both Turan and Richard Schickel.
(BTW: Richard Schickel was a film critic for the little publication known as TIME Magazine. You can read his reviews at http://www.time.com.)
well shit, fire, and applesauce. he was mentioned on a commemtary track on the fight club dvd? how could i have missed a guy mentioned on a dvd commentary of one movie in the past decade? obviously this is one relevant motherfucker.
lets face it. if any of these guys had anything worth reading or saying in the past 10 years they would have crossed my radar. these percentages may be more telling than you think.
well shit, fire, and applesauce. he was mentioned on a commemtary track on the fight club dvd? how could i have missed a guy mentioned on a dvd commentary of one movie in the past decade? obviously this is one relevant motherfucker.
lets face it. if any of these guys had anything worth reading or saying in the past 10 years they would have crossed my radar. these percentages may be more telling than you think.
I’m honestly astonished that anyone who’s avidly been following film-related material on the net for the last decade (including reading plenty of reviews) would never have even heard of Dargis, Turan, McCarthy, Schickel, etc. For what’s it’s worth (and maybe it’s worth nothing) they’re basically among the highest profile film critics in the US.
A.O. Scott? David Denby and Anthony Lane? Armond White? David Edelstein? Any of them ring a bell? What about more internet-oriented guys like Mike D’Angelo, or James Berardinelli?
I mean, I’m certainly not even close to the most well-read or knowledgeable film person around, and not only do I know these names, I know their styles, what types of movies they like, how harsh (or mild) they are with their criticism, etc.
Since we’re correcting spelling, note to the two who stuck up for Lisa S. from EW: There’s no “t” in Schwarzbaum.
Well, I could try to blame it on me being lazy and copy/pasting the long name from Dave’s original post… but in reality it’s because I don’t really care. š
Ebert and Knowles sure must eat the most pie, so they should get the largest slices
i’d like to turn the conversation around.
someone tell me why someone like me needs to know who these people are.
i have critics i read online. obviously these guys don’t have a high profile. so why exactly do these guys matter online?
or, as i argue, they aren’t important at all. just voices that have done a piss poor job of making themselves a must read online.
Then I direct you back to my original comment – how are Nielsen defining and measuring “buzz”?
This is getting a bit absurd. Dargis is a top film critic for the New York Times; Turan has been the lead critic for The LA Times for ages. Both of these papers are readily available online (which is apparently the only place that anything matters).
The MCN homepage has often linked to them, especially Dargis. LexG used to rant about Turan here all the time, but I realize many of you scrolled past his posts and so may have missed them.
I’ll avoid the question of why they “matter,” but I really don’t see how they’ve slipped under your radar this long — you should know who they are by osmosis at this point.
I quote Douglas Adams regarding “readily available” information:
“`…You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’
`But the plans were on display…’
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’
`That’s the display department.’
`With a torch.’
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’
`So had the stairs.’
`But look you found the notice didn’t you?’
`Yes,’ said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”. Have you ever thought of going into advertising?’
i don’t get it. either that pie chart is retarded, or incomplete. how can you compile such a chart without providing survey data such as how many people were polled and what if anything they were asked? or is it based on site hits/something along those lines, or something else altogether?it’s bogus unless they tell you how ‘buzz’ is measured