May 19, 2024
The Hot Blog
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"]
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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
A better qustion is do snarky comments about someone else’s reporting qualify of journalism?
Whatever someone does, I am interested in what they think they are doing. I don’t care that gossip exists. I do care when it is positioned as news.
It’s the same way I don’t care if a filmmaker makes something that isn’t my taste… I will never smack someone for that in public. I am primarily interested in whether they achieved their goals, not mine.
“Whatever someone does, I am interested in what they think they are doing.”
But David: You often lash out at some of us because, to paraphrase you, we’ve dared to presume to know what you think. Yet you presume to know what others think?
Uhhh, Joe…I think he just ASKED what they were thinking.
Also, who are we talking about here? I’d assume Finke but dunno.
Don: D’oh. You’re right. Looks like I’m back in the corner with the pointy hat on.
Joe – We post about 30 links a day on MCN and go through more than 100 possibles. I think I know when someone is selling a story as “news” or “fun.”
And no, Finke did not specifically inspire this poll. When she runs “passed along e-mail,” there is usually a very specific intended target.
And Joe… for the record… when I get really pissed, it’s because I explicitly tell you/whomever what I am trying to say (aka, what I think) and I am still accused of thinking something else.
While I haven’t read the item that sparked this discussion, it does raise issues I can comment on. Journalism is about filtering and selecting that which may be newsworthy because of its content or source but it is more than that. Even a simple press release or e-mail needs reportage. There are the acts of getting confirmation, denial, commentary and providing context within the framework of what makes the item newsworthy that separates journalism from passing along raw data.
David, why don’t you provide some context and just tell everyone that this poll relates to the Paramount-related email that I “intercepted.” I mean, why beat around the bush? You’re perfectly entitled to think it’s hack work. I get agency coverage emails like that all the time, usually with a rundown of every studio and 2-4 projects in development with notes. Every reporter gets them, and we all select which story is a priority to follow up on. Last week it was hilarious. I ran with the Luc Besson – Lock Out project. Fleming went with the Honeymoon With Harry story. Variety and THR went with the Dolphin Tale casting. Clearly, we are all privy to the same information. In this case, this entire email (about 30 projects – some of which were news, others of which had already been reported) was about Paramount, and to me, that’s a story worth reporting/an email worth posting. Clearly THR received the same email, since about 15 minutes after I posted it, they came out with their J.J. Abrams-7 Minutes in Heaven exclusive, which they had probably spent the afternoon reporting. I could’ve done the same thing and then it would’ve been off to the races. And all of those stories would’ve trickled out over the next few days from the various outlets who received it. Instead, we decided to post the entire email all at once. If you consider that hack work, fine, but please know what you’re talking about before you start name-calling. I’ve always shown you respect and I love reading your opinion on all things Hollywood, but that’s all they are. Opinions. Not much real “reporting” or so-called “good journalism” happening on The Hot Blog either. And besides, let’s face it, all of this movie news is meant to entertain people and serve as a brief diversion from their jobs. Whether Paramount is happy with the Baywatch script isn’t exactly life and death, New York Times stuff, is it?
EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!! EXCLUSIVE!!!
From Jeff Sneiders Column ” (Update 10 p.m. PST: An earlier version of this story was labeled as “exclusive” but it is not)”
Do readers even give a flying fuck what’s exclusive anyway? You get the story wherever you are that minute. So someone breaks it 2mins before the rest. Whoopdedoo.
You’re so vain, you probably think this poll is about you…
Sorry, couldn’t resist. š
Jeff – I didn’t want to write about your story or I would have written about your story. It’s bigger than you… or Sharon… or Nikki… or Harry… or any one person, one story, one site, etc.
As for the effort to call me out for doing what I do – and have been doing, pretty much the same way, for 13 years – perhaps you should stay on point.
You – and others – have this delusion that I don’t know EXACTLY how this all works. I am now old enough (and you young enough) to say that I knew how this all worked while you were still working on a full set of pubic hair. I have hit to every field in this game. Every form of media. Many layers of fame and success (and lack thereof). Employee, self-employed, employer. The only thing I have never done is to become is a national story myself. And on that, I mostly count my blessings. You are highly unlikely to ever do anything in this business that I have not already done.
That is not to say that you may not do it better some day.
But my utter disinterest in JJ Abrams’ development slate at Paramount is not really the point. (Ooohhhh… Tom Cruise came to JJ’s office yesterday and had lunch and talks M:I4 and…. eeewwww!) Nor is your interest in same.
Of course, you understand what you are doing as well as anyone.
“all of this movie news is meant to entertain people and serve as a brief diversion from their jobs.”
“In this case, this entire email (about 30 projects – some of which were news, others of which had already been reported) was about Paramount, and to me, that’s a story worth reporting/an email worth posting. Clearly THR received the same email, since about 15 minutes after I posted it, they came out with their J.J. Abrams-7 Minutes in Heaven exclusive, which they had probably spent the afternoon reporting. I could’ve done the same thing and then it would’ve been off to the races.”
You are doing what you think is journalism. And that’s fine. God bless you and what you think. And good job doing what you think you should be doing.
But I disagree. Vehemently.
I don’t disrespect you, though I think you as green as a spinach salad. I disrespect the journalistic role that you are fulfilling and the twisted editorial leadership you work under that doesn’t teach you to have higher standards. I know you mean well, both because you are a decent human and have ambitions. You wouldn’t be doing this kind of think if you didn’t think it worked for you and your site and even your source.
The pissing match I had with the guy on your site over reprinting the Village Voice under your header… I was right and he was wrong. But I believe he thought he was doing something that was alright. And if one of my people did the same, I would pull the pages, run an apology, and lesson on theft learned. But why would he think he was wrong if his bosses told him it was “good work?”
How would someone at The Wrap know that running the first two graphs of most stories on a Wrap page is theft, not aggregation if The Boss thinks otherwise and in her stunning arrogant ignorance, presumes to tell others what the rules of aggregation should be?
It’s bigger than you and it’s WAY bigger than me. People think I am making personal attacks. And I am sure they sting. But I am (almost) never attack people. I attack bad ideas and low standards, as I see them.
And Jeff, I know you are of the generation that thinks they know everything at birth. But opinions are not like assholes, unless they are being offered by assholes. Some of us do have more information and experience than others of us. And I’ll put my educated opinion up against anyone who has written about the film business in the last 20 years. That doesn’t mean I am always right. Not by a long shot. But because I do put in the work, I am about to offer my opinion and facts to back it up.
I can also name the source, within 3 guesses, of 95% of what’s printed in this racket. And that says nothing good about e-journalism.
You know, I am friends with everyone at USA Today. They are not doing investigative journalism about the film business. But they are not pretending to do so. And what they do, they do quite well. I’m not just sitting around with my nose in the air, waiting for something to criticize. But don’t tell me it’s purple when it’s so clearly orange.
You want to be an entertainer? Great. Go for it. But don’t tell me that it’s journalism.
And that brings us back to my question in this poll. What do others believe? I didn’t skew the survey with the answers either. I got a response that makes me sad, but which I know, in my gut, is true and fair. “Not Really Journalism, But I Enjoy It Anyway” Almost half the votes.
And so it f-ing goes…
Posting details from emails is not journalism. Especially if theyre fed to you.
Posting emails in their entirety is not journalism, but its more honest. At least youre showing your work.
I think you could provide some bit of context here. By internal e-mail, are some studios disguising what would otherwise be press releases to look like it was some secret convo between like a creative exec and someone in business affairs? Sounds sort of dubious but that
Well, TO, those examples obviously are from another planet than movie studio slate rumblings. But even so, no… not good journalism. And even more than you suggest, it would not only be bunk, but it would be seriously irresponsible journalism.
If 60 Minutes got its hands on said memo from Toyota, you can be sure they would spend weeks investigating the context and turning the planet upside down to get Toyota and experts on these alleged accelerator problems to be interviewed on camera. If they just had an e-mail that inferred that Toyota customers might be in danger and just aired it before reporting it, they would cause a panic, which may or may not be fair to Toyota and/or its customers.
Same with the boot call thing. If all they had was a seeming booty call travel record, they would be putting themselves in terrible danger of being sued if there was a reasonable answer to the alleged travel record or if the document wasn’t what they thought it was. (see: Dan Rather)
Thing is, we have people who run one-source stories now all the time without ever asking the source WHY they are being fed something that might damage another person. There are a variety of motives for this kind of behavior, but it’s become the standard.
As Jeff notes, his choice was one of expedience. No one will be bloodied. But I can tell you from first hand experience, a few select words in print can lead to someone at a studio spending hours or days trying to clean up a mess that may have had no validity in the first place.
“This information was floating around… this one did this story… I did that story… so and so did another story… it would all come out eventually…” leads to a kind of forgetfulness that this is all someone else’s information to release as they see fit. It’s not a criminal investigation. It’s movie development. And the move to publish the e-mail, which Jeff notes, is the kind of thing he gets every week, was kinda a bored, lazy, thoughtless choice.
Like I wrote, I don’t think Jeff is evil or even badly intended. But he threw the cards over (What’s My Line reference) and didn’t add much to the story by doing so. You know what I would have really respected? A piece, done as all these stories rolled out with various spin, on how there was this memo in August and this piece was printed here and that piece there and that is how entertainment journalism is done these days. Print the memo with some purpose other than to get ahead of the curve and to get attention.
And the baseball thing… one reason why Congress does have an interest is that baseball lives under and antitrust exemption. So the Congress has an interest in the sport not defrauding the public while they enable it.
it is the best journalism