MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Screen It 2k+9

I don’t want to start reporting every DVD that hits the porch as though it is news, but with WB, Focus, Sony, Fox Searchlight, Sony Classics, and Magnolia landing with Academy members so far, it is interesting, I think, that WB decided not to ship The Hangover, though there will be Globes push. And even with the big DVD release party, no Star Trek for Oscar so far either.
I’m not sure why Searchlight hasn’t pulled the trigger on Crazy Heart, a movie that will play better on TV… not coincidentally made for TV.
There will be plenty more DVDs on the way…

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “Screen It 2k+9”

  1. gradystiles says:

    I don’t think Crazy Heart was made for TV. I think it was made by CMT (Country Music Television) Films, and it was always intended for theatrical release, as far as I know. Didn’t it just get caught up in some political maneuverings at Paramount/Viacom that caused it to be acquired by Searchlight?

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    You are mistaken, David.

  3. What’s interesting, at least to me, is that Warners, for the first time, sent out FYC screeners to some of the smaller critics groups.
    As for why FSL hasn’t pulled the trigger yet on Crazy Heart, I seem to recall in years past them sending out two sets of FYC screeners. In 2006, I believe we got Little Miss Sunshine and The Namesake early in the award season and then The Last King of Scotland and Notes on a Scandal later. And in 2007, I recall Once and Waitress coming a few months before Juno. Last year, I only remember one shipment, late in the season, for Slumdog and The Wrestler. We just got 500 Days of Summer today, and I’m told Crazy Heart and another Fox screener will be going out in December.

  4. Daniel Tayag says:

    Have there been such a thing as Blu-ray screeners yet? I remember reading an article last year saying that WB or Sony would be giving members an option of choosing screeners on Blu-ray.

  5. Aris P says:

    The PGA sent an email out on behalf of one of the studios (I dont recall which) asking us to inform them if we wanted BD screeners. All this is moot, however, as I forgot to pay my dues and have already missed Where the Wild Things Are and Informant screeners, among others.

  6. Cadavra says:

    Maybe it’s possible–just possible–that WB didn’t ship HANGOVER because even though it soaked up $250 mill from the knuckle-draggers, they’re smart enough to know that Academy members aren’t so easily fooled.

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