April 26, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
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” — 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
RT is still showing a 100% for The Social Network (52/52) but courtesy of MCN the inevitable has transpired: Armond White tore it a new one. Puts it in some good company, and it looks like it’s going to easily win the weekend and possibly end up north of $30 million.
I think they should run ads with pull-quotes from White’s review. Sort of like a badge of honor.
Paul, the easy win? Really?
Yes, really. The Social Network is getting a much wider release than Let Me In, in addition to its higher profile, seemingly endless media chatter, and PG-13 rating. ComingSoon, for example, predicts $27 million for TSN and $13 million for Let Me In this weekend. An easy win. Brace yourself.
Have they been taking “From the director of Cloverfield” off the ads for Let Me In? I’m not going to do that “name-checking” bullshit, but I do know quite a few people who would be instantly repelled upon seeing that, including me, though really, I can admit to it being a technically well made movie even if I consider it one of the worst movies of the past decade, and I wouldn’t mind seeing another movie by the director, especially if it’s a story from another source. But if I see ONE dumbass chucklehut douchebag trying to take control of the camera, I’m hitting the exit.
Just like they did with the DVD release of FIGHT CLUB, running the pans of Ebert, Turan, etc etc etc. I remember being tickled pink about that.
Maybe they should change it to “From the director of The Pallbearer.”
Earlier this year there was a thread about the supergraphics defacing LA. I still think that for Tinseltown they were pretty cool. However, looks like the LA City Council are a buncha haters, too.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hollywood-signs-20100929,0,1561452.story
Last night I watched Infernal Affairs not knowing, or at least not remembering when I started that it was the same movie that The Departed was based on. I didn’t dislike The Departed but did think it was fairly mediocre and certainly shook my head when it won the Oscar. Now after seeing Infernal Affairs I just really wonder what the point was. If you can set aside the arrogance of me questioning Scorsese, the original had such a heart and soul that I didn’t see duplicated or replaced in The Departed.
I wasn’t here back in the day to know what was written on this site but it’s kind of a reinforcement for why I am so reluctant to go out and see Let Me In. Not just, oh well, I’ll get around to it but I don’t even know if I want to even bother. I recently had this discussion over the original Bad News Bears and the Billy Bob re-make. It just completely missed the point. Or well, they didn’t care about having “a point” but it sure as hell was a sucky film w/no heart. I’m not saying every film has to have the little engine that could buried inside but I find it more than a bit disheartening that for a nation w/so many talents and resources and so much ingenuity that the prospects of seeing any film, even previous domestics, being re-made here having the same connotation of fine cuisine being smothered in ketchup.
1) I agree with you about Infernal Affairs compared to The Departed but The Departed at least has the whole weird sub-plot with Damon’s character being gay, and how that effects him being an inside guy for Nicholson. Outside of that, Infernal Affairs is just better.
2) I like the Bad News remake for one reason and one reason only: Billy Bob. It may not be as good as the original but he’s just awesome in that film.
Damon’s character had a gay subplot?! You jest, surely?
There are subtle clues about that character’s sexuality throughout the film but the most glaring is his inability to perform for Farmiga’s character.
Devin Faraci writing for Aint it Cool? A temp thing or has he come in to fill the gaping hole ever since Drew left for Hit Fix?
Speaking of, while writing an article about the diminishing returns of web advertising, i found this article
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/apr2010/sb20100420_472554.htm
good read.
According to Devin, Harry just let him use AICN as a place to put up his Fantastic Fest reviews, and he still has some new gig elsewhere in the coming months. It would make sense if Devin worked for AICN but he has that other GIG.
That aside, the best stuff to come out of FF is the bad mouthing Farci put on Nunziata. Seriously, he just punched that guy out as if… he had… DRAGON PUNCH!
I had not heard faraci nut punching nunziata. But it makes sense. Eventually the guy who starts the site and the guy who define the site end up hating each other.
Like the social network, only chubbier
I got an HJ in the theater during The Pallbearer.
I’m sure it helped pass the time, damn what a dull movie.
Sir, that was freaking hilarious.
There were several indications Damon’s character was gay in The Departed – besides the Farmiga thing there’s an odd exchange between him and his landlady when he moves into his new apartment, the heavy use of various homophobic slurs in significant places, etc.
Shit. Looking forward to watching Departed again with that in mind.
Devin would fit in well with the AICN ethos but he tends to be quite aggressive whereas Drew was more intellectual. On the film coverage I actually quite enjoy Beaks (self aware), Massawyrm (funny), Herc (damn good at his job), and Lautoro (mix of all three). I’d really like to know what Drew was referring to in his first Social Network review about there being a shake up in the company and him being pushed out. I mean the guy was the other head honcho, the ‘counterbalance’ (yes, I know) to Harry’s effusions.
Could someone please furnish links to the Faraci vs. Nunz spat? I stopped frequenting CHUD over a year ago so I’m kinda out of the loop.
Jeff, indeed, and you are the first one that I ever read/heard bring up this part of Departed, so the credit still goes to you sir.
JB, it happened on twitter the other day. I have no idea who started what but from what I came across, it has to do with being paid, Devin stating he’s owed money, and Nick did not pay him. This was later followed up by Nick stating that he went out of his way for Devin, and that’s how he get repaid. It’s sort of sad but it was obvious once Nunziata returned, that Devin would have to go, and now Chud has a bunch of weird arty dudes posting reviews. Yay.
i know that there is a very famous story among publicists about a certain overweight web reporter with a big mouth complaining about how the site founder ‘barely paid him enough to eat’
and someone replied ‘i think he could afford to skip a meal or two’.
but i would imagine it would be infuriating. you’re this person who does all the work, who brings the sliver of dignity the website and has to basically dance for sheckles to the whim of some morbidly obese man child.
that would just be hell. it would take every ounce of willpower not to wrap my hands around most of his neck and shake him until all the change fell out of his folds.
I see. Bummer. Devin can be an arrogant blowhard sometimes, but he’s a damn good writer. Sorry to hear the split turned ugly over money. Thanks for the response IO.
what do these guys do in 20 years when they’re 60 and have no retirement? no 401k. Saddled with tax debt from unfiled 1099’s. Crying over the film about the giant shark that never got produced. You become a target for younger bloggers to take swings at.
Imagine doing this shit past 40. You’re still scene as some douchebag kid who bought an isp and pushed your way into the industry that does nothing more than tolerate you because they’re afraid of doing anything other than maintaing the status quo.
Maybe Jeff Wells can start a support group.
The best thing the studios could ever do would be to yank advertising from the sites for a year, watch as all these sites dry up and go back to not spending so much time dealing with a marketing opportunity that ten years in still isn’t adding more than 5-10% to the bottom line. And the films that do benefit are ones that are projects that will probably bank less than 50-75 million domestic.
If you cut their funding, you’d choke them all out. None of them have the financial stability or liquidity to last that long. In this economy, the landscape would change faster than you can say “Will Write Angry, Rant Filled Review For Food”
I wonder how much money is spent by studios pandering to the film websites vs. the return of that investment.
The studios bought most of these sites years ago, but they’re still paying dividends. They could just stop writing the checks and the dissenting voices would just shrivel up.
Too bad the marketing and publicity people are so fearful of change. This could turn the online film sites into a feast of famine mentality. imagine the kind of output we’d see from that kind of desperation.
seen… not scene.
@Anghus re: scene – I knew what you meant but did you know there’s a new edit feature? I tried it out last night and it seemed to work pretty good.
As far as the ROI for studio ads in some of these blogs/sites, could these expenditures also be viewed as sort of a soft money contribution? Maybe the reasoning being that individually the sites might not be worth what we’re schilling out per ad but collectively they establish not only a more informed and interested populous but the mindset for people w/the web will be entertainment content. Our job of driving people to it for whatever specific event or series down the road becomes that much easier because people aren’t just seeing the internet as ________ but as the place you go along w/the theater and TV. Something along those lines?