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
I will say that you don’t seem to have quite learned the lingo. Rather than ” RE: http://www.tinyurl.extrdf, I think B”, you need merely go “@dudewhosaidthat I disagree” or something like that. As long as you hit “reply” on that particular tweet, anyone reading can see the “in reply to” link on your response and click back to see what you are responding to.
And also, instead of, for instance, “@dudewhosaidthat Hulk is aweome. DP: No, Hulk is not awesome” The convention would be to go “No, Hulk is not awesome. RT @dudewhosaidthat Hulk is awesome.”
These are just examples. Hope it comes across, because I’m just trying to help make your tweets easier to follow.
As for your poll question, there is no one size fits all answer. In my own case, I engage so long as there seems to be anything constructive in the conversation.
I didn’t vote because I think the appropriate response depends on a number of factors. The question I would ask myself when tweeting in a contentious situation: “What do I actually achieve by publishing what I just wrote?” If you like your answer, go for it. If not, abort. Or rephrase. Keeps you accountable to your value system, whatever that may be.
“@davidpoland Do you genuinely not realize how often you are personal and little and not just to me? Is it that second nature these days?
about 2 hours ago via DestroyTwitter in reply to DavidPoland”
YOU TELL’EM STEVE DAVE! How often I have felt that way I cannot even count!
so much drama in the LBC, it’s kind of hard being SNOOP D-O double-G….
kevin smith shuts down his message board. film critic flame wars. the internet is cracking…
CRACKING IN HALF….
Personally, i think decorum is overrated. Flame the shit out of each other. It’s so much better than this passive aggressive bullshit.
I think the story is hilariously ridiculous. Drew’s ‘reporting’ is someone filling him in. He’s a shill of Finke-ian proportions. By posting Feige and posting a response from an agent, it’s come back to making the story about the reporter. The flame war only validates that. It’s not about the story, it’s about the online personalities shilling for whatever cronies they are familiar with.
No ‘Exclusive’ should start ‘The Producer of this movie called and told me….’
I don’t begrudge Drew his exclusive at all. And 90% of what you read about this business, Anghus, starts with “The producer/writer/director/studio told me…” That is the job.
All I ask for is a little transparency. But in the case of Drew, I haven’t asked that of him or expected it for years. He has always argued that he (and AICN, in the day) is above suspicion and therefore does not need to be transparent.
I just don’t care about the issue at hand. And that is why I tweeted… about whether “anyone” cares about Norton playing Hulk/Banner. It was not an attack on the story. And indeed, a few people, like Luke, said some people cared. But insulting Drew’s journalism was so not in my mind it never even occurred to me that he might be upset… and thus, explode.
Ironically, when I read more about it and actually had an opinion about the pieces and not the idea, I was drawn into writing about whether the Feige crossed the line… regardless of whether he was being truthful.
The truth in this case is Standard Operating Bullshit, based on the conversation that is happening between the two sides, no matter what the answer is. And who is being truthful will always be “he said/she said.” That is one of the many reasons why I don’t believe in reporting process. But I hadn’t even thought about that.
But God bless Drew and his exclusive. My only thought was, “Do I really care about this fight on Sunday afternoon?”
Then I thought, did Feige really have to kick Norton in the balls in public?
And IO, you negate Drew’s comment by being the first person in any conversation to go personal and beyond the issue. Bullshit on you there, sir.
If you think I am attacking you personally, you are either at the end of a long string of attacking me or you are paranoid. Attacking you is not on my list of things to ever do.
yes, i realize that the nature of a lot of ‘reporting’ is being fed information, but i don’t get the ‘exclusive’ part.
Shouldn’t an exclusive be, well, exclusive?
If Drew didn’t exist, Feige would have called someone else. Producer needs outlet. Calls friendly online film presence who will not spin material. It just doesn’t feel like reporting to me.
The model for the online film site in the 21st century seems to be critics who shill for friendlies.
“He has always argued that he (and AICN, in the day) is above suspicion and therefore does not need to be transparent.”
I get it, but if I may say, the amount of information you toss around without a single shred of attribution could receive the same criticism.
Dave:
“I just don’t care about the issue at hand. And that is why I tweeted… about whether “anyone” cares about Norton playing Hulk/Banner. It was not an attack on the story. And indeed, a few people, like Luke, said some people cared. But insulting Drew’s journalism was so not in my mind it never even occurred to me that he might be upset… and thus, explode.”
Not trying to sound like a constant DP sycophant, but I followed the exchanges today, and he is exactly right. That’s what the initial Tweet was in a nutshell.
It’s up to the writer of the piece to separate themselves from what they wrote, and what others think of the story itself.
David wrote; “And IO, you negate Drew’s comment by being the first person in any conversation to go personal and beyond the issue. Bullshit on you there, sir.”
I am supposed to fight fair? FAIR? THERE IS NO FAIR HERE! You also must read stuff like Christian and never ever get that until you attack me, I do not attack you. It’s always worked that way but you sir, you have attacked me for the most passive comments, and that is unjust. BOOYAH ALL UP IN YOUR FACE!
Look…as someone who’s tried; you can’t question some of these bloggers on ANYTHING…especially transparency. They have a total meltdown, act like they’re some kind of martyr for the internet, drag out all their sycophant readers to turn against you and generally bitch, whine and pout until you feel bad that they’re so thin skinned and that you bothered saying anything.
I followed the whole blowout today and in typical Drew fashion, he feels above questioning of any kind, even when the question truly seemed to be “Does anyone care who plays Bruce Banner?” I also don’t know if it’s considered “legwork” or even “reporting” if the agent of a snubbed actor feeds you a story, but it sure gets hits!
‘ But insulting Drew’s journalism was so not in my mind it never even occurred to me that he might be upset”
Dave, you called the reporting ‘OCD.’
Both Twitter flare ups you had this week began with you passive aggresively throwing things out into the void. Think about that. These things aren’t the result of people coming at you, it’s people feeling attacked by you. Maybe when the third iteration of this happens you’ll sit back and try to figure out why people keep feeling like you’re coming at them (hint: it’s because you’re coming at them).
I’ll throw in my two cents since you’re taking a poll, but I have never understood why you ever debate people on this blog or anywhere else about things that are matters of perception, ego or opinion.
I originally started reading the blog for its BO analysis (linked through indiewire.com/blogs) but left quickly because of your snark about industry personalities.
Came back when I realized this was still my favorite site for BO analysis, thought about leaving again when you got into it with IOIO about Avatar last year but decided to stick around when I just accepted that you are not above these muck-raking skirmishes with the readership.
I wish you could just let these comments about other people go and do your own thing. You are good at it. Worrying about what Nikki or Waxman or anyone else has to say or do is a losing battle, and a very ugly one at that, imo.
When people make blatantly misinformed comments about BO in the weekly wrap-ups, let it go. No one is ever held to anything they’ve said previously on this or any other message board. There are no stakes and you’re in a war of attrition with people whose time has no value.
There will always be people who are unwilling to learn or are willing to turn objective measures into something personal. Debating it is a complete waste of time unless you feel like doing it just to do it, and frankly you are too well informed to spend your time that way. Just write your posts and let that work do the educating.
And just for context I think I have been reading the blog for about 18 months.
A counter-point to Gus above: I really enjoy it when David participates in the comments, but only on the box office or movie review posts, and pretty much never in the posts about other journalists. I visit the site because I like to read about movies and the movie business. I have no interest in blogger gossip. So for the most part I skip the rambling critiques of other bloggers’ ethical lapses. I wish he would too, if it would mean more energy devoted to actual movie stuff.
Really, Devin, it is instructive that you continue to insist to know what I think better than I do.
The proof that your response to me is an accurate reflection of me is your response to me? Nice maze of onanism.
The stores should stop selling food I don’t like… because I still don’t like it!
Guys… I appreciate that there are a lot of readers who would be happier if I just stopped paying attention to how entertainment journalism works or fails to work.
But for me, it is an important subject (unlike Hulk or Inception reviews). And I think that if people didn’t assume the status quo was unchangeable, they would find my interest less irritating. I see the small changes as they happen. Sometimes it is futile. Often, there is a very tangible response, which I never write about, as it would be insanely self-congratulatory. But when no one says anything about a bad habit – and more people are conscious of these things than I think most blog commenters realize – the habits stick. Often, all it takes is one pop to the nose for a bad habit to be broken… or the threat of one.
I am an authority figure to some without having any real authority… except being right, when I am right.
And I have done this long enough to be able to look back and to see how one person can make the job virtually impossible for everyone else who is trying to do the job. The machine never slows… but people get chewed up in the wheels and the bad behavers make the people who control the machine feel like they have no choice.
Nikki, for example, has taken bad practices from the trades and made them much worse. And as a result, all industry coverage has gotten stupider and more callow and more aggressive and abusive and worst, inaccurate. That’s not unimportant to me.
What is instructive to me is these last two posts. First one is there to criticize others without providing anything else, the second is informative, stating what you are here to do and why it’s of value.
The first one feels about as productive as name-calling, the second one feels actually productive, like when you explain your analytical logic in the BO threads (as opposed to what some others do when they just pick a project the like and ignore whatever else comes.)
I just wish you would resist giving back as good as you get with the trolls… It is sort of like when AO Scott admits that the reason he doesn’t engage his commenters is because it’s “not always a level playing field.” That’s true, and he has the will to just let it go.
But again it’s your blog and you do what you like with it. I don’t even pay you the two cents I’m giving here.
Devin-
I find it f-ing HYSTERICAL that you’re accusing David of attacking other people. HYSTERICAL. The only reason I ever decided to question your “professionalism” publicly was because I kept seeing you tweet about how “professionals” should behave and then….I see you verbally berating Alex Billington in a video, watch the movie “Heckler” and see you spittling all over yourself while flipping off the camera, screaming “Fuuuuck YOoooou Leonard Maltin!!” and all sorts of hateful, attacking comments you make to other writers. You drew my attention by being an angry man-child while trying to proclaim how professional you are.
Just last week you once again used “getting laid” as something someone who has fought back at you should do in order to not question your character or motives. That’s not attacking someone, is it? Not in your book, I’m sure.
And I’m 100% in agreement with David in terms of people trying to keep runaway writers in check and challenging the status quo. No one keeps you in check, Devin and look at what’s happened. Your ego an anger are at a tipping point but everyone just says, “Oh, that’s Devin being Devin. He’s just a really passionate guy.” No one checked Jeff Wells for years and now look at what’s going on over there?
In closing- are you or Drew ever wrong? Ever? Is anyone ever right for questioning your transparency or motives? That’s really a rhetorical question because I don’t think you allow that kind of discourse without, you guessed it, attacking whoever brings it up.
Don, I’m not the one asking on my site why people get into fights with me. I know why people get into fights with me.
Your beard. It’s got to be your beard, right?
People fight with devin because he’s inflamitory…
….like a hemorrhoid.
CHUD. Inflaming assholes for the better part of a decade.
Fair enough, guselephant.
I don’t consider Devin or Drew trolls. And the reason I have a blog in this format is to interact. But yeah… hear you… and I thank you for offering your thoughts.
“These things aren’t the result of people coming at you, it’s people feeling attacked by you.”
That’s right, Devin. “Feeling” attacked. When someone feels attacked a lot of times they aren’t being, and that’s their own problem. Insecurity. Psychosis. Whatever.
And that’s been a McWeeny trademark. David attacking whether the story is important isn’t the same as attacking Drew. But in Drew’s mind it is. He thinks it’s important, his identity is way to attached to these things, and he takes it personally. Quite frankly, he’s a big baby here.
You, you’ve been an outspoken, over-sensitive, mean-spirited prick forever, and you don’t claim to be otherwise for the most part. So while I don’t like you or read you anymore at least you’re up-front. It doesn’t make you professional, but that’s your own delusion.
If anything, Dave does go on too much about other journalists. I understand that’s of interest to him. I think we’d all like to see him steer clear of a lot of this stuff. We don’t need to know every time Finnke farts. Maybe that “here he goes again” feeling is what made Drew and others upset.
But….it’s his thing. My wife doesn’t like me going on and on about shit I’m into but it’s what I am. I just thought that by now you guys would have grown up a bit, and beyond the meaningless petty bullshit. But you aren’t. Too bad for you. You have a whole legion of like-minded, insular creeps at CHUD, and that’s certainly am impressive thing. The site chugs on. But a town full of babies is still full of babies, man.