MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

More Weird Things

When you start looking around the web for Charlotte Lewis stuff, you run into the oddest things.
Please forgive the gentle vulgarity of this post, but both images are news of a kind…
First, the Playboy 3D centerfold… I have covered the key naked part with a 3D image… just for consistency. And I can confirm that the 3D works, c/o a set of red/blur glasses that came out of the Jona Bros concert Blu-ray.
3DHope490.jpg
And this… from the new Avatar cartoon… that also happens to be a porn parody…
avatarporn490.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Responses to “More Weird Things”

  1. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I’d be willing to bet that Avatar porn was available even before the film opened.
    Rule 34 dude, rule 34…

  2. David Poland says:

    Rule 34
    Generally accepted internet rule that states that pornography or sexually related material exists for any conceivable subject.
    Additionally it is accepted that the rule itself has limitations and you cannot be too specific on the content of the item in question.
    Most commonly used on various message boards for various reasons, from humor to cruelty.

  3. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Your definition is out of date. The current version states “NO EXCEPTIONS!”.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    I like the porn sites where the women wear glasses. But, hey, that’s just me.

  5. torpid bunny says:

    If I just stare really far in the distance does that make it 3D?

  6. Nicol D says:

    Pulled out my glasses from Bloody Valentine…it works.
    But is mucho lame.

  7. lazarus says:

    David Poland: Too much time on his hands
    LexG: Don’t really want to know what’s on his hands, especially after he sees this blog entry.

  8. Hallick says:

    Just one step closer to Harry-Potter-newspaper-style porn (on paper at least, since it already exists in online banners).
    And yet, Smell-O-Vision’s still goes nowhere.

  9. torpid bunny says:

    You could say our era privileges the eye…

  10. This is actually one of the best illustrations I’ve seen of the uselessness of 3-D beyond the “wow” factor.
    It’s all porn for the eyes. It enhances the visceral experience of certain sequences but that’s about it.
    To put it crudely, is the above image any more spankable in 3-D than not?

The Hot Blog

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