MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Danger Of Shortcuts

The Drudge headline…
Picture 182.png
The actual story.
Not a review.
In fact, the normally scrupulous Guardian kinda crosses a line here by running this story about how two movies ruined the TV show… without, apparently, having seen the second movie.
The author writes, “Judging from the hideous trailer and even more hideous scenes that have been leaked on the web.”
She adds, “(C)ould a cinematic experience be any worse than that SATC film (part 1) was? The answer from this Friday, when SATC 2 opens, looks set to being in the affirmative (and I warn you now, this article will be full of spoilers, spoilers of both the film and your memories of the show).”
Every spoiler does seem to be from the commercials and trailers. Is it possible that she saw the film and is trying not to break embargo? I guess. But by claiming spoilers and speaking so definitively about how the 2 films have ruined her memories of the series, she blurs the line with clear intent, if unclear purpose.
Is it journalistically responsible to condemn what you haven’t seen… even if I assume she is right about “2” sucking?
Is this in any way “The First Review?” Or is it just another desperate attempt to get ahead of a story that hasn’t happened yet… even from one of the best outlets for movie coverage in the world?

Be Sociable, Share!

23 Responses to “The Danger Of Shortcuts”

  1. chris says:

    I’d say it goes beyond kinda.

  2. Stella's Boy says:

    Holy crap it looks dreadful. Whining about how hard motherhood is and how a two-year marriage is stale plus jokes about hot flashes in the desert. Ugh.

  3. christian says:

    What does a link from Drudge have to do with journalism?

  4. leahnz says:

    oh boy here we go, the usual predictable round of pretending silly fluff ‘woman’ movies are the antichrist and somehow worse than silly fluff ‘man’ movies laughed off as ‘mindless popcorn fun’
    (it is impossible to review a film sight unseen, obviously play for attention)

  5. LexG says:

    It’s not that it’s about WOMEN, Leah.
    If SATC was about Jessica Biel, Kristen Stewart, Amanda Seyfried and Megan Fox parading around in LITTLE OUTFITS and trying on SEXY SHOES and drinking their stupid Cosmos, it would be hypnotic and like a WARM BATH OF AROUSAL.
    It’s that it’s about OLD WOMEN.

  6. leahnz says:

    the herd of bitter mancows went that way, lex. you better catch up or they’ll leave you behind and you’ll have to come up with something original. whatever would you do?

  7. jeffmcm says:

    I’m at the point where I have a Pavlovian response to the phrase ‘little outfits’ (a negative one, in case that wasn’t clear).

  8. Chucky in Jersey says:

    That first review was in the Hollywood Reporter and it may set off a firestorm.
    Incidentally, the same article that Hadley Freeman filed for The Guardian appears in the Daily Mail with some slight editing.

  9. Stella's Boy says:

    You can’t say SATC 2 looks like a terrible movie without accusations of sexism?

  10. Whether the movie is any good or not, at least it appears (according to the above link) to be about ‘something’, which is more than you can say for Iron Man 2. Won’t see this in theaters, as my wife and I found the first one dreadfully dull on Blu Ray. My wife likes the show, disliked the movie, which is about how I felt about the X-Files films (dumbed-down distillations of a smart franchise that makes the fans of said franchise look foolish). Box office will be interesting, as sequels to TV adaptations either explode (Transformers 2) or completely crash and burn (X-Files: I Want to Believe, Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas, etc).

  11. a_loco says:

    You know, leahnz actually has a point there. There’s no reason to suggest that SATC looks any worse than, say, Jonah Hex or Prince of Persia, but because most of the male/nerd press (myself included) would rather see a dumb lame action/adventure movie (even if they think it’s bad) than a smug comedy about old rich bitchy women, the perception of the movie becomes that much worse in the media.
    On top of that, there’s also the feminist critics who seem to have an extra hatred for the SATC movies, but are pretty blase when it comes to the rampant chauvinism in a lot of Hollywood films.
    As a result, SATC gets perceived as an evil smelly piece of shit, whereas the numerous braindead action films are just ignored.

  12. LexG says:

    Not entirely, a_loco.
    I, and 90% of the world, would also get more stoked for HEX and PERSIA than, say, a lame Will Ferrell comedy, or GROWN-UPS, or Paul Blart 2.
    Action epics just seem inherently more awesome than comedy, which is usually low-rent and kind of a waste of a night at the movies. Even the junkiest, PANDORUM type widescreen violent hard-R action movie seems like you got “your money’s worth” over something like “Bruno,” which while funny is basically a cable-access-level production. Action EXTRAVAGANZAS are more cinematic.
    I never understand when they do polls and people say they go to the movies “to laugh.” Fuck laughter… comedy films are the bottom of the barrel, unless it’s like aggressively hostile and sexist like MISS MARCH or TOMCATS. Then it’s AWESOME.
    None of that made any sense whatsoever even to me.

  13. LexG says:

    Also anyone who isn’t excited about Prince of Persia or Jonah Hex is a fucking asshole.

  14. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Then I can confirm what you have always suspected – I am indeed a fucking asshole.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    Another asshole, which is sort of disappointing. I try hard to not be an asshole, but Price of Persia looks awful.

  16. jennab says:

    I cannot BELIEVE MPK is the same person behind the brilliant “Comeback.” I hope 2 flops so we are spared 3. Bad is bad and transcends gender.

  17. hcat says:

    The more I see the Prince of Persia spots the more I understand how Sam Worthington is getting all these big budget action roles.

  18. rw says:

    Yesterday I have seen “Prince of Persia” here in germany, and it is, indeed, awful. I still think something must have gone terribly wrong at the production stage or in the editing room – the whole film is a mess in terms of storytelling, acting and images.
    Not looking forward to “SATC 2”. I caught it on TV last week and didn

  19. rw says:

    Sorry. What I meant to say was: I caught the first film on TV, not SATC 2.

  20. Krillian says:

    Anytime Drudge links up to something movies, I always think of how he posted the twist ending of the Planet of the Apes movie as a headline.
    Never watched the series. Saw the first movie on DVD. I understand why they’ve greenlit a sequel. But a movie about four insanely, inexplicably rich women flaunting their wealth in the Middle East just seems obscene.

  21. hcat says:

    Krillian – I can’t help but think if they included a big FU to Christian fundamentalists as opposed Muslum fundamentalists people wouldn’t be mentioning that aspect of the movie nearly as much.

  22. Adam Lapish says:

    “One of the best media outlets in the world”
    Er, no. Not unless you rate left wing, communist, tree hugging, unwashed, socialist, benefits scrounging, anti capitalist propaganda.

  23. storymark says:

    Looks like Nicol D has a new soul-mate.

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