May 2, 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” 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
Ich sehe keine Meinungsumfrage.
Oh, wait, there it is. It was being blocked by the Flash blocker in Firefox. It’s supposed to give me the option of loading Flash content. Didn’t work for some reason. Never mind.
I think a lot of people (like myself) sampled the first movie and won’t be seeing the sequel, so I figure that’ll balance out the true believers and result in a 0% increase. I’m probably wrong though.
Man, I’ll tell you. I feel like an old fart but I just simply do not care about these films in the slightest bit. Normally for niche audiences that aren’t my niche, I have some kind of morbid curiosity but this Twilight thing is beyond me.
They’re romance novels splashed with vampire and other supernatural stuff. I doubt most dudes could get into films like these. I’m looking forward to this because I like Chris Weitz’s stuff.
“They’re Christian-book-store romance novels splashed with vampire and other supernatural stuff. I doubt most dudes could get into films like these. I’m looking forward to this because I like Chris Weitz’s stuff.”
fixed that for you.
Hey, there isn’t an option for New Moon doing less than Twilight!
Hahahaha… okay, that’s enough from me…
“They’re Christian-book-store romance novels”
Christian-book-store? There’s nothing remotely religious about these books.
I have no idea why people get so fucking pissy towards Twilight. It’s just Buffy and Angel with a lot more melodrama. Excuse me for being a fan of something new, that’s based on something old I like. Seriously, dudes are such pissers sometimes.
Nothing remotely religious? They’re written by a Mormon, and judging by the first movie, are primarily about suppressing desire so as not to have pre-marital sex.
There’s even that whole minor subplot about the girl who wants a prom-dress showing cleavage…then she finally relents, and gets a more modest one.
I realize they’re too “occultist” for literalist fundies, but the subtext seems very Christian.
Someone I know said on Twitter that the Twilight films are to vampire cinema what Christian rock is to rock and roll, which I think is a very good analogy.
Someone I know said on Twitter that the Twilight films are to vampire cinema what Christian rock is to rock and roll, which I think is a very good analogy.
No, that would be True Blood. A show so truly bad, that it makes Udo Kier cry blood.
I’m not pissy about “Twilight.” Not at all….I simply do not care either way. I’m not offended in the least if people love or hate it. I’ve just never had this level of ambiguity towards a cultural phenom since, well, any reality show of late.
“Nothing remotely religious? They’re written by a Mormon, and judging by the first movie, are primarily about suppressing desire so as not to have pre-marital sex.
There’s even that whole minor subplot about the girl who wants a prom-dress showing cleavage…then she finally relents, and gets a more modest one.
I realize they’re too “occultist” for literalist fundies, but the subtext seems very Christian.”
Actually the girl got the dress that she really wanted. Did you miss that part at the end when she was pointing to her boobs? I guess you did.
There might be a theme about sexual repression, though that’s only because he’d end up eating her or something, but that doesn’t automatically make these books Christian in any sense. Had these books been written by a non-Mormon, no one would be saying there were any religious overtones.
Yes, well these books weren’t written by a non-Mormon, so the point is moot.
The religious subtext of Twilight has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum, and I suggest googling it to read more.
Me? I’m just going to see Reese Witherspoon’s tits.
“Yes, well these books weren’t written by a non-Mormon, so the point is moot.”
No, I’m afraid your point is moot.
It’s interesting how this same subject and theme were covered in the Buffy series, yet no one called that a religious show. But I guess they should’ve according to yours and other standards, but since Joss Whedon is an atheist, he gets a pass.
I was mildly surprised there was someone who didn’t know about the religious subtext. I am utterly surprised they deny it’s there. Hell, I thought it was a forgone conclusion by now.
And yes, Whedon covered similar ground. It’s not the “what” they cover, it the “how”. Context has a way of changing things.
*sigh* I am fully aware of some people’s impression of there being religious subtext. However, it’s a very flawed argument, as I just showed. Someone’s religious affiliation is not context. You should only be looking at the actual context of the book. For people here who I’m sure have never even picked up any of the novels (not me, I’ve read the first two), I find this “analysis” of the film amusing. And no, there’s no real difference between what Joss Whedon did with that storyline compared to this one, just the consequences of promiscuity. There’s subtext, and then there’s just making stuff up or imaging things, and some people don’t know the difference.
Given vampires’ historic adverse reaction to the cross and other holy artifacts, isn’t any kind of religious subtext automatically inherent in the material? Even in a spoofy way, as when a woman in FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS uses it on a Jewish bloodsucker, and vice versa in LOVE AT FIRST BITE, when Richard Benjamin foolishly tries using a Star of David. Or in the case of INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, where I just sat there muttering, “Oh, God…”
Cadavra, I agree, but for some reason the Twilight series is being singled out as Christian, similar to the Narnia series.
Just to add, the Narnia series is good example of novels having Christian subtext.
Following up on an unexpected hit the sequel is promoted in the standard Hollywood manner with the Legion of Doom and Tons of Hype!
Why else is “New Moon” getting a worldwide day-and-date release? That is a question the Liberal Media dare not ask.
“Why else is “New Moon” getting a worldwide day-and-date release?”
It isn’t. It debuts internationally today and rolls out for the next few weeks. It’s a tight window overall, yes, but no tighter than “2012.”
Why isn’t the liberal media asking questions about that one either!!
I assume I am 2 or 3 (or maybe 4) decades beyond the target audience for New Moon, but I would be lying if I said I had a terrible time at the preview screening tonight.
Look at the Houston Santa Claus enjoying a Twilight film. BOOYAH!
Laugh now, IO. But when you find that lump of coal in your stocking on Christmas morning…
Im not laughing. I find it cool that you enjoyed it even though you are not even in the age group. Again, it’s a good thing. Now stop being so defensive, and go insult Poland about something.
I’ll agree that there doesn’t seem to be any particular Mormon subtext in the movie of Twilight (maybe there is in the book but I ain’t gonna read it to find out). There’s definitely a moral subtext, just as there was in Buffy – but the difference is all about execution. In Buffy (to my eyes) the characters were strong and complex and their actions had consequences, and it was all richer than if it was just going for some kind of moralizing lesson.
one thing that could hurt ‘new moon’ is that whatever people think of the first ‘twilight’ (not at all my cup of tea but not quite as drippy and awful as it’s been made out to be), the one thing it has going for it is undeniable chemistry and sexual tension between the leads; but according to my teen god-daughter (15 i think) who saw ‘new moon’ this afternoon on opening day and gave me an earful, edward is hardly in this new movie and bella spends a great deal of it swanning around with lautner, with whom k-stew does NOT (according to my girl) have the same sizzle and romantic urgency she has with pattinson.
that breathless passion and excitement between edward and bella in ‘twilight’ is what got the girl’s knickers moist the first time round and going back for more, so no matter what the quality (or lack thereof) of ‘new moon’, if that core heat is lacking the fangirls may turn out for it initially but not feel compelled to go back to the cinema again and again to do that crucial repeat business that likely drove the first ‘twilight’ to theatrical success
(all just a guess based on my god-daughter’s reaction; she liked it ok and thought it was ‘good’ but didn’t have that slightly frightening teen-girl-hysterical-enthusiasm for it that she had for stewpatt in the first, like she had to go see it again OMG! but if the girls do get their freak on for lautner all bets are off. i don’t see it happening for some reason tho. i guess i’ll have to see it as some point)
Based on watching the Comic-Con footage of the trailer, where the ladies went nuts over a shirtless Lautner, I don’t think the studio has much to worry about on that end.
“There’s subtext, and then there’s just making stuff up or imaging things, and some people don’t know the difference.”
And then there are those who deny it’s there because they didn’t see it.
Battlestar Galactica had a Mormon subtext; Twilight – not so much. Supression of desire is hardly a theme unique to the Mormon church, or even christianity in general. The movie’s prudish portrait of sexuality would find an eager audience in India, Africa, and the Middle-East who would not attach any ‘Christian’ significance to it. Go to China and you’ll find a culture that represses sexuality in culture without any religion at all.
I don’t want to be an amateur psychologist, but Twilight’s conservative tone probably exists to reflect its primary audience – pre-teen girls, who DO find sex as frightening as it is enticing.
“Based on watching the Comic-Con footage of the trailer, where the ladies went nuts over a shirtless Lautner, I don’t think the studio has much to worry about on that end.”
i don’t know about that, brack.
the fangirls were still in the grip of edward/bella hysteria at that point; just because they went a bit wild for lautner’s bod doesn’t mean anything — if the actual chemistry between bella and jacob in the movie doesn’t strike a chord for the fans like the edward/bella love story did, they won’t go back for repeat viewings. that sort of serendipity can’t be for planned for or forced, it just happens.
it takes more than just nice abs to ignite a full-blown girl’s fantasy frenzy (maybe men just don’t get that, assuming women are like men for whom female nudity is enough); the chemistry and romantic sizzle between the lovers is key, FAR more important (and very tricky to capture/emulate)
“Twilight’s conservative tone probably exists to reflect its primary audience – pre-teen girls, who DO find sex as frightening as it is enticing.”
i think that may be a bit of a fallacy; from what i’ve seen pre-teens girls are only a segment of the ‘twilight’ reader/fanbase, which appears to range right through the teens to adult women
further to my comment above about the age diversity of fans of the ‘twilight’ series, from the washing post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111804145.html
(i should point out that i’ve never read any of the books so i have no idea what they’re on about and no personal insight into the phenom, but dismissing it as simply silly prepubescent religious allegory would appear to be missing the mark somewhat; apparently edward and bella have some hot and extremely rough vampire sex at some point)
I found the WaPo article quite revealing because of all the unexpressed assumptions it contains and which are readily apparent if you read between the lines. Start with the headline’s paraphrase of Wilde’s famous remark about homosexuality. The implication being that these women who like “Twilight” feel torn between staying in the closet and escaping from it. Then there’s all the “can you keep your feminist card if you like it” stuff which gets rehashed. And so on and so forth. You would never, ever see an article like this in which guys justify liking “Star Wars.” Of course, “Star Wars” is respectable, so such an article would never make sense. It would have to be something else, maybe video games. Which gets us to the ridiculous notion that reading these books is somehow subversive or transgressive for these supposedly smart, intelligent, modern women. Women like trash romance novels? ZOMG!!! No wonder the author of the article (one of the worst writers at WaPo, and I say that as someone who subscribed to that paper for 17 years) got ripped a new one by one of the Style section’s long-time editors last week.
oh, i didn’t mean to imply the article was any good, just relevant to the issue of adult twilight fandom. the fact it states early on, “this is a story about shame” rather sets the tone
(i’m not sure if you were actually comparing it but the ‘twilight’ series has very little in common with ‘trash romance novels’, blackc, it’s more fantasy fiction/romance with some horror notes — like i said i haven’t read them but i’ve skimmed my god-daughter’s volumes and while they don’t appear terribly well written, the content isn’t harlequin romance-ish; for better or worse it’s very much bella’s arc from awkward teen to woman savior and mother)
New Moon is leaps and fucking bounds above Twilight. It’s just a tremendous fucking film, and the subtext seems rather obvious. What if you loved someone who lived forever? What would you do? BELLA SWAN… YOU MAKE THE CALL!
It’s just awesome stuff, and I feel for people who hate on these films. It’s romance with vampires, werewolves, and asshole vampires. What’s not to love? Hell, it could be worse. It could be True Blood. Alan Ball… GIVE IT UP!
“And then there are those who deny it’s there because they didn’t see it.”
That’s the beauty about perspective. I have mine, you have yours, and yet somehow yours is more correct, given you keep having to have the last word, no? I doubt you’ve read the books, given yours and others stances on this subject. The flawed point that you’re making, again, is reducing the events of the books as Christian, or religious, but since the film mostly deals with a girl’s romantic involvements with supernatural guys, it’s a bit of a stretch, to say the least. C’mon, what kind of book with the girl who’s ready and willing would ever be considered religious or Christian? She’s a suppressed heathen, if anything. There’s no moral lesson except for deciding to give up humanity. Turning that into a religious story makes the books utterly pointless.
I’m with IO, I just saw the midnight showing, and wow, New Moon is so much better than the first Twilight movie. Chris Weitz should come back for the final film (since Eclipse has already wrapped filming).
“What if you loved someone who lived forever? What would you do?”
I always assumed that the Twilight movies were kind of shallow, but wow I was wrong. That is really deep. I had no idea.
Leah, it’s most definitely not just tween girls who love the series. My sisters (28 and 23) and their friends are rabid fans.
“What if you loved someone who lived forever? What would you do?”
Apparently, attend high school for 90 years.
Cmon! The dude is over 100! It’s just creepy… you’d think someone would notice after he failed to graduate for the 5th time.
Yeah I think he never failed to graduate, and it’s not creepy because HE CHANGED AT 17! Seriously, dudes are such fucking tools, when they do not like something. Good lord.
So vampirism stunts your emotional development as well as your physical? Excellent!
I’m not making fun of the concept – I’m working on something extraordinarily similar at the moment – I’m making fun of the execution. As has been pointed out, there’s a world of difference between Buffy and Twilight despite many common elements (not the least being Stephenie Meyer has enough money for a Scrooge McDuck swimming pool while Joss Whedon relies on talking people into working on his projects for free).
The execution is different if you think it’s different. I see a lot of similarities between Twilight and Buffy. It’s the emotional tone that Twilight has, that I feel Buffy never touched on enough for me. So again, goof on it all you want, but it’s rather douchey. Especially if you are so dude that loves some art film, that 99 percent of people would slam as GARBAGE.
IOI, please don’t tell me that you just said that Twilight is more emotionally resonant than Buffy.
One thing that Buffy was having Angel and co. just hanging out in crypts instead of attracting attention to themselves by going to high school – after the first 10 or 20 years in high school, what’s the point of still going?
C’mon IO – EVERYONE has a film that they love that 99 percent of people will slam as GARBAGE. There’s a difference between having an emotional connection to the film and trying to defend all aspects of the film in its minutiae.
Case in point: Buckaroo Banzai is a cult favorite with many devoted followers (including me). The lead character is a physicist, neurosurgeon, Samurai, rock musician, Jet Car driver. That’s just silly on so many levels.
Stuff has flaws – there’s no such thing as “perfect” storytelling. If you enjoy the Twilight series good for you, but if you catch yourself trying to rationalize elements that don’t make sense then I’d suggest you should re-examine your devotion to the movie.
Sulking and calling people douches when they point to reasons why the film didn’t connect FOR THEM just makes you look less mature than the target audience. Feel free to call me on my appeal to the crowd instead, it’s an easy target. I can take it. š
In a bizarre twist of fate, I shall now proceed to side WITH IO against Jeff!
Despite rabid Whedonites’ devotion, the Buffyverse never really appealed outside a small-ish, core base. You can make the case that one resonated more for *you* than the other, but not that one is *objectively* more emotionally resonant than the other. It’s a purely subjective thing.
Fair enough, and I wouldn’t argue that Buffy had extreme widespread blockbuster appeal, but to the extent that it ispossible to argue that the quality of writing and characterization was objectively stronger on the show than in the first Twilight movie, I would make that case as strongly as possible – especially considering that they’re so similar it makes the apples-to-different-apples comparison a little less difficult.
Foamy: anyone hating on Team Banzai are jackasses. Again, I think it comes down to most dudes really getting the emotional resonances of the film, and thinking it’s fucking silly. Good for them, but it always leaves me feeling fucking awesome. So here’s to that there.
Jeff: go listen to the commentaries on season two from Joss himself. They were constraint in what they could do with Buffy and Angel’s romance, and it shows. Ed and Bella just have chemistry galore, and I like it better. IF you disagree. Good for you, but I am a hardcore fucking Buffy fan who feels this way. So that’s that so to speak.
Not really getting… keep reading!