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
Yeah, it’s probably a clever marketing stunt.
It seems like everyone thinks this is a stunt just because the music is so clear. But you can download just about every movie in theaters right now that are taped off a screen and have perfect sound. You can plug the camera into the projector, apparently.
Why would a trailer screening in Europe have an MPAA advisory?
Rob, among all the blog fudge that’s piling up, some have reported that the trailer did show in the U.S. at some random screens around the country. Since “dobvlvstiuwir” has posted only the one video, and the studio hasn’t called up YouTube…
If only Zaillian’s script is as clever weaving Lisbeth’s own hacking acumen.
It’s a purposeful leak. This is the highest quality looking and sounding cam of a trailer I can remember. The movie looks great too.
26 hours have past and the original video is still up. Youtube is quick to pull high profile stuff like this off very quickly.
Totally a stunt.
Totally worked.
The handheld nature works perfectly with the titles.
Looks absolutely sensational (huge Fincher fan!), but am I the only one who finds the overexposed Craig to be a boring cold fish of an actor?
A stunt? Wouldn’t a real HD trailer get as much coverage? Releasing an ok quality one seems like a bad idea
I don’t think it’s just about getting attention. It’s an aesthetic statement.
And interesting that YouTube is allowing the red band w/nudity to run. Don’t they disallow nudity?
There’s nudity on YouTube for “educational” or “artistic” videos. Hollywood movies don’t get this luxury.
They did this time, Nick. Perhaps that is part of the exercise.
From what I can take from this trailers is, if you seen the original, there is no need to spent any cash on this one.
There is a TON of nudity on Youtube.
I still don’t see the purpose either. Is there anything in the story about videotaping things or anything that would make the trailer work conceptually?
I think people are assuming it’s a stunt because the sound is so good and the picture is good. That’s what I keep hearing. But that isn’t enough for me…it took me about two minutes on the interwebs to find the full version of Thor that looked and sounded just as good, and it was even on a tripod!
The trailer suggets that Fincher’s version has more punch than the swedish one. It’s what all my friends are writing about. If that’s the case, it will join Matt Reeves’s ‘Let Me In’ as the second swedish movie that produces a remake with as much integrity as the original.
Also interesting a studio releasing/endorsing a bootlegged trailer when pose a vehement fight against piracy
the bootleg style totally works artistically to the trailer’s advantage. I say release it to theatres like that. š
pretty easy, to pull off, film the trailer screening in a big screening room. That image will be incredibly blown out and jumping, due to 29.97 recording issues (unless they’re recording with a non consumer camera, but we know it’s a stunt so the point is moot) none of which matters because the point is that you’re just capturing a plate. Then drop it in avid, on a layer above the theatre plate, put a pip or 3d effect on it, enable x and y tracking, set a few parameters and voila, you’ve got great video overlaid perfectly on the crappy video without having to spend a lot of time jiggering the positioning of the image around to simulate a faux shakeycam.
It’s clearly a stunt. About 3 seconds into the first shot the resolution of the image changes from soft to clear. Has no-one got eyes any more?
What does that mean? They could have left auto focus on…a lot of times you see the camera making slight adjustments when it goes from black to a picture. Nothing out of the usual if you’ve watched Cam versions of movies.
The internet is making everybody dumber.