May 14, 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” — 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
Wahoooo!
Even if Rog can’t be one of the actual critics discussing, I’m thrilled the format is returning.
Roger ought to let Ben Mankewicz be a guest critic once or twice, just to make it clear only one of the Bens was the worst thing ever to happen to film criticism.
will it air in CT? if so, what station/time? where can one find this info out?
Better cool your engines, Actionman (and Krillian), lol.
This latest iteration of “At the Movies”–or whatever they’re calling it these days–promises to be a trainwreck of epic proportions.
Neither “Legend in His Own Mind” Elvis Mitchell or “Barbie Movie Critic” Christy Lemire inspire a lot of confidence on my part.
They actually came close to getting it right with A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips; this, however, sounds like a(nother) disaster waiting to happen.
When do I get my own show?
They just announced that Mitchell has been shown the door. Be curious to see who his replacement is.
Interesting, Cad. I hadn’t heard that.
Now if only they’d dumped Barbie and find a real-life (human) film critic they’ll have…well, half a show anyway.
“dump,” not “dumped” (see, I’m already thinking past-tense, lol).
Elvis Mitchell has been dropped as a critic on the new “Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies,” set to debut Jan. 21. The program will be shown on more than 190 public television stations and on the Armed Forces Network, according to Ebert.
When producers Roger Ebert and wife Chaz Ebert announced the new program in September, Mitchell was paired with Associated Press movie critic Christy Lemire, who is still with the movie review show. But since that announcement, there had been growing concern about whether Mitchell was the right person for the job. One source who had seen the pilot shot earlier this year with Lemire and Mitchell said it showed little on-air chemistry between the two.
The Eberts are now under pressure to find the right person by Jan. 1 for the show to debut on schedule. One dark horse candidate believed to be under consideration is a young male in his mid-20s with little or no experience as a movie critic or as a TV talent. Another possible option, sources said, would involve a pairing of Lemire with another critic described as a female version of tart-tongued former “American Idol” judge Simon Cowell.
Ultimately, the Eberts will have the final say on the second of the two sparring critics on their new movie review show review. “This will be an enormous decision with enormous consequences,” said one source.
One dark horse candidate believed to be under consideration is a young male in his mid-20s with little or no experience as a movie critic or as a TV talent. Another possible option, sources said, would involve a pairing of Lemire with another critic described as a female version of tart-tongued former “American Idol” judge Simon Cowell.
Oh, brother!
Methinks it’s time for Rog and missus to pull the plug on this sucker before it’s too late.
They should replace Elvis Mitchell with LexG. GOOD SUBSTITUTE.
What LYT said. SECONDED.
They should go with Disney’s last “At the Movies” pairing (Scott and Phillips).
A little dignity, guys!
i think by now we should all be intellectually honest and admit that the era of the television critic is long dead.
it doesn’t matter who’s on the show. they’re rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
so, yes. im basically asking ‘who cares’?
Anghus- I basically agree with you. It’s probably nostalgia on the part of old fogies (myself included) who yearn for the halcyon days of Siskel and Ebert trading barbs in the balcony–much of it well-reasoned and intellectually stimulating for those who love movies as much as they appeared to.
Why Roger feels the need to perpetuate the mythology at this late stage of the game is unfathomable. Is it simply overweening ego? I mean, he certainly doesn’t need the money. If anything, these ceaseless (and usually criminally wrong-headed) variations on the original S&E formula only further dampen Roger’s great legacy and dimish an exciting chapter in “movie critic-dom.”
I love that lol