If it makes Sharon feel any better, the New York Times nealry hacked up the Iron Cross story even worse that she. They had a long interview with Neil Stiles, by their own definition, but there is no hint of a direct question to him about whether he had the review removed. He, not Tim Gray, is the key player here.
But they did get this… and it could be a game changer… Tim Gray’s response, by e-mail (WTF?!?!).: “Of the
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"]
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
For the record, has this become a ‘media criticism’ blog, instead of a ‘movie criticism’ blog?
I think that at this very second, Howie Kurtz is calling his agent, and saying “Who the ‘F’ is David Poland?” But then again, he wouldn’t really care about this story. And I couldn’t care less-I care about your motivations as a writer.
I never got the answer to my question from 2008. You were writing about Obama v. McCain-and people were questioning whether or not you were turning this into a ‘political’ blog. It was always political in the comments section, but you stayed out of it for awhile.
Do you think that you were calling out people covering politics in the same way that you call out journalists covering the movie industry, and if so, why do you think that you had the qualifications to do so? I’ve definitely heard “I know what I know because that’s what I do” after I’ve questioned you about the movie industry, and I’m willing to accept that.
But, when you go in other directions, and question other motives, do you think that is any different than a random blogger (like myself) saying, “You’re wrong!!!!!!”.
I don’t ever get the feeling from your writing that you think anyone outside the movie industry ‘knows’ what you do. That’s fine-I would never say that some random blogger could tell me what my knowledge/history is in my job-but I would answer questions about it without being defensive.
I guess my question to you is this: If I had never read a single article about the entertainment industry/movies, or Hollywood, or pretty much anything-why should I read you first over Finke, Waxman, etc., when I’m trying to learn about the entertainment industry? What are you bringing to the table at this point? By asking this, I’m not calling you out anymore than you call out anyone else. But really-it’s getting to the point where I feel like I’m reading a personal blog/diary.
You’re definitely good at what you do, and you obviously have readers, but do you notice that the same people comment everyday, no matter what you write? I don’t know MCN numbers, and honestly, I don’t care-but I do notice the same people leaving comments everyday. I don’t see that at a lot of other websites with big audiences.
I used to get a lot of factual information about HW BO from you-now I get speculation and opinion, and general inside rants. You still have the BO numbers on Friday and the end of the weekend, but I can get that from 1000 places.
You talk constantly about ‘value’ in media marketplaces. Can you list 5 things that MCN in general is bringing to the table, that I can’t get elsewhere by searching Google? ‘Variety’ is ‘dead to you’ and becoming extinct in HW (in your opinion)-why shouldn’t MCN be ‘dead to me’?
If you want (and the readers want), I can give you ‘5 reasons MCN should be dead to me’, and explain them. I won’t be the person who sits here and criticizes without responding to criticism. I doubt that will happen-you have responded before, and I am grateful for that.
But in the end, for every post you respond to, I get at least 5-10 negative responses, and sometimes more. I never claimed to be correct 100% of the time about anything, but I don’t see a point in “Hey Walsh-Stop Being a Douche” as a motivation to keep sticking around here. And I just realized-if I did that, and believed that, it would not be my problem.
MCN and The Hot Blog should be dead to you, Jack. 100%.
I don’t want to be responsible for your stroke… or even you soiling your shorts.
I’ll confess my ignorance of all the parameters of journo ethics. Removing a bad review because the film’s marketing arm bought up a lot of ad space does seem like a clear no no. What I’m not sure about is why Mr. Gray should loose his head over his flip flop? According to the e-mail excerpt posted, he removed the review after being threatened by lawyers, then he put the article back up after reviewing the review and found it to be OK.
OK, there’s obviously a HUGE gap in logic. Wouldn’t you review the review FIRST and then decide whether or not to take the thing down? I mean, at the very least, doesn
OK, I screwed up referencing the order of operation (from Gray’s e-mail) but my main points still stand.