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
A critical pass? Yeah… no. Thank you for playing but sorry you didn’t win. Please try again later, with a different movie. Good day.
OK, I should know better not to possibly stir up a hornet’s nest, but: David, precisely what do you mean by ” a critical pass?” Do you mean like a pass/fail grade? Or a free pass?
I mean, there were a lot of critics writing, basically, “Didn’t suck as bad as we feared… There were some cool Asgard effects that I haven’t seen before… it’s okay.” Not very serious/ low expectations… a hall pass.
Sounds like what some of us were saying after the L.A. press screening of Waterworld: “Hey, it didn’t suck.”
David really is the closest to a real life version of THE CRITIC any of us are ever going to get.
I agree with what David is talking about. Thor is the official start of the summer moviegoing season. Critics often go a little too easy on the first big movie, then go hard on the second.
Let’s go to the Tomatometer:
2010: Iron Man 2 (74%) / Robin Hood (42%)
2009: Wolverine (37%) / Star Trek (94%)
2008: Iron Man (94%) / Speed Racer (38%)
2007: Spider-Man 3 (63%) / Shrek 3 (41%)
2006: Mission Impossible 3 (70%) / Poseidon (33%)
2005: Kingdom of Heaven (39%) / Star Wars Episode 3 (80%)
2004: Van Helsing (23%) / Troy (55%)
2003: X-Men 2 (88%) / Daddy Day Care (28%)
You’ve got to be a real piece of shit (e.g. Van Helsing or Wolverine) not to get a pass if you’re the first movie, and you’ve got to really exceed expectations (e.g. Star Trek or SWep3) not to get kicked if you’re the second.
I haven’t seen Thor yet, but it’s at 79%. Is it really that good? And I’m pretty sure we can expect the knives to come out for Priest next week.
I’m sure there are some folks expressing disappointment, but really……Thor is a second tier superhero and he out-opened Superman and Hulk??? That’s pretty impressive – the marketing folks once again deserve enormous for delivering a big opening for a property that seemed too niche/geekish on paper – a la Transformers, Iron Man, Star Trek, GI Joe. Seriously, no one is better at this than them. It will probably end up doing around what Clash of the Titans did, domestically and worldwide – that’s pretty strong.
Still, will this add any real potential grosses to The Avengers? I wonder what Marvel is really expecting – will there so many marketable characters, but they’ll all be watered down?? I mean, if you REALLY dug Thor, are you going to be chomping at the bit to see him just a year later bantering with Tony Stark?
Same with Captain America – seems like a true-blue origin story that could really connect and then….just throw him in the mix with Hawkeye and Black Widow less than a year later, as well? If this is all just set-up to make the most successful Avenger movie possible, I wonder just how effective it will be. After an Avengers movie, is Marvel looking to reconnect with these characters in bigger sequels?
Dave (and IO), I welcome your opinion to this subject…..
“I agree with what David is talking about. Thor is the official start of the summer moviegoing season. Critics often go a little too easy on the first big movie, then go hard on the second.
Let’s go to the Tomatometer:”
Which shows your claim only to be supported five years out of the last eight. Not much to go on.
And let me expand on that a little more….saw Thor last night and enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Lots of fun and truly appealing work fror Hemsworth and Portman – she was a bigger part of the movie that I expected and their scenes together are pretty sweet and have me at least wanting to see those two characters again.
So what do you do for The Avengers, then? Is Portman going to be in it? I mean you bring the character back to earth, Thor, and he’s not going to seek her out and meet her again? From my standpoint, that’s a bit of a cheat – why’d you have Portman and her character in this in the first place, then?
“And I’m pretty sure we can expect the knives to come out for Priest next week.”
That will have more to do with the fact that Priest looks like a complete hunk of shit than the release pattern.
Eric,
That list really didn’t seem to prove anything other than critics are likely to give good Rotten Tomatoes scores to movies that don’t really suck and bad ones to movies that really do. If anything, it proves the opposite of your theory and there really isn’t a trend.
As for the Avengers, we’re really in uncharted waters, which is what’s so cool about what Marvel is doing. They’re doing okay, and sometimes better, business on their solo projects, and could have a monster hit in Avengers. Or, it could just be okay. Who knows? What studio has really tried anything like this before?
As movie geeks, isn’t it fun to see a studio finally trying something different with their tentpoles? Haven’t geeks been chomping at the bit for a Batman vs. Superman movie? Good on Marvel for getting there first with Avengers.
Geoff, Natalie Portman is in the Avengers. If you see Thor. You’ll understand why.
Now with that whole TIER thing; it’s bullshit. It’s bullshit because it ignores that outside of Cap, every single one of these current MARVEL FILMS have been attached to a long running cartoons through decades. These characters are in-grained in the culture, especially Thor, whose just known, and now he has an awesome movie behind him.
Your worries with the Avengers film are shouted down by Serenity, Angel, and Buffy. I could expand but you mortals will soon understand the power of THE WHEDONVERSE (Seriously, go and watch those shows and movie, and notice how well Whedon handles the TEAM concept, He’s the perfect guy to assemble the Avengers)!
Fair enough alynch, let’s look a bit further back then.
2002: Spider Man (89%) / SWep2 (67%)
2001: The Mummy Returns (47%) / Shrek (89%)
2000: Gladiator (78%) / Battlefield Earth (2%)
1999: The Mummy (54%) / SWep1 (62%)
1998: Deep Impact (47%) / Godzilla (25%)
1997: The Fifth Element (72%) / The Lost World (51%)
1996: Twister (58%) / Mission Impossible (59%)
1995: Crimson Tide (87%) / Die Hard 3 (49%)
1994: Maverick (70%) / The Flintstones (22%)
Another 6 out of 9, for a total of 11 out of the last 17 years.
You can only go back so far for this, as I don’t think the summer movie season was marketed quite the same way before the mid-90s. I don’t recall it as such, anyway.
Anyway, the individual movies are obviously the most important thing, but it just seems like a loose trend.
39% for Kingdom of Heaven, even the theatrical version, is FUCKING DISGUSTING. Were critics asleep while watching? That’s the most epic epic ever done.
Seems everyone disagrees with me. Maybe it just sticks out as a trend to me because of how frequently I find myself preferring the more poorly-reviewed of a year’s pair of movies, e.g. 2010, 2005, 2002, 1999, 1997.
IO, I think I made it clear that I SAW Thor.
SPOILER ALERT
Ok, because of that Easter egg in the end with Stellan Skaarsgard, that guarantees that Portman is in the Avengers? If that’s all you’re going on, can I remind you about The Incredible Hulk? Downer has that cameo at the end and I sure as hell was not expecting William Hurt to be in the Avengers and we already know that Ed Norton isn’t returning. And along those lines, could any one just assume that Marvel would keep continuity with these characters after replacing Terrance Howard in Iron Man 2 over money??? Don’t me wrong: Portman hasn’t said no to anything lately, she was in Your Highness, for christ sakess. Yes, a sweet cameo on on her part in The Avengers would kind of address this, but still the point remains…..Paramount marketed the hell out of Thor and Portman was a big part of that campaign. It worked and her character will be a big reason for the success of the movie…..so a year later, you have the reappearance of Thor and give her character short shrift. Just seems like you’re cheating the burgeoning fans of a developing franchise off the bat, that’s all I’m saying. And if they kill her off-screen, man!
And don’t get so damn defensive about the “tiers,” man – just the way it is, Thor was never as well known as Hulk or Superman, what’s so damn insulting about that? My favorite comic book character as a kid was Daredevil and I could easily admit that he was just was not as well-known as the big ones. Never a got a chip on my shoulder about it.
And yes, Thor is a blast of a movie, dug it – nice to see Brannagh back, too. We’re on the same page, relax, brother!
Apparently, Nikki Finke is on good terms with Universal once again. Witness how she spun the massive 69% dropoff for “Fast Five”:
“The Friday-to-Friday domestic drop is primarily due to the loss of all IMAX screens and large-format screens which had only been booked for one week.”
Ummmm…yeah.
i’m waiting for Io to tell someone they didn’t “get” Thor.
The fact that you think that argument does not exist Anghus, shows you just don’t get it.
Geoff, the tier thing is fucking bullshit. Seriously, it’s just ignorance from people who don’t pay attention to pop culture and these characters place in it. Thor is not Superman but he’s THOR. He’s a known entity and saying or stating otherwise, is just sheer and utter bullshit.
You also seem to ignore that Jane has to show up in The Avengers and that Avengers movie is probably going to be long. Seriously, if people can spend three hours with those fucking trees walking around and the eagles not saving the day two spare us two additional movies, then they will sit through an epic Superhero movie.
ETA: Also, let me just site another franchise that I love… The FAST FIVE. Everyone united as a team to take down an incredible threat, will get people into the theatre.
Just to point out: It is possible for critics to genuinely like “Thor” even if you did not.
Saw PRIEST this week. I won’t say anything about the film itself, but I do want to note that once again, the MPAA has proven itself utterly unfit to rate movies. Innocuous pictures like THE KING’S SPEECH and IT’S COMPLICATED get saddled with Rs, while this wall-to-wall gorefest (bodies blown apart, heart ripped out of a man’s chest, children put in mortal danger, et al) skates with a PG-13. Un-fucking-believable.
Chris, if that’s about David: no.
I’d argue that by the reviews jumping the broom seems to be at least a decent if not good movie while something borrowed appears to be a piece of excrement.
As I look back on the Tomatometer, I’d say most of those scores hold up pretty well.
Funny how Iron Man 1 & 2, Hulk, Thor and Capn America are all basically prequels for THE AVENGERS. It had better be one cool movie.
Krill, it’s apparently one of the greatest comic book scripts ever written. Yeah that’s a lot of hyperbole but that’s the hyperbole attached to Whedon’s script.
BTW: If you haven’t seen Fast Five yet, a word of advice: Don’t leave before the closing credits are complete. My son did just that, and I had to tell him what a nice surprise he missed.
indeed. i can’t wait to see how they ‘splain that in ‘faster six’
A twin sibling, perhaps?
ooooohhh, yes!
(third time’s a charm? i can’t seem to post now)
BTW: If you like Sung Kang in the Fast and Furious movies, you should check out his performance in The Motel, a very fine indie dramedy that deserved a much wider release than it received five years ago.
If I may respond to several points (been away all day)…
Cadavra’s complaints about the MPAA and Priest actually have me slightly more excited to see it. Come what may, at least we’ll get the gory goods. It’s long been the case that films that were supposed to be R but ended up PG-13 clearly deserved to be R anyway (Daredevil, Live Free or Die Hard, Robocop 3, Jonah Hex, etc). In the ‘how did this get a PG-13?’ catagory, I’d add Angels and Demons (gore, torture-murders, and execution-style galore) and Vantage Point (overtly realistic violence, wholesale slaughter of innocents, and non-stop point-blank executions, etc)
Actionman is right about Kingdom of Heaven. It was one of those clear cases of critics ganging up on a movie because it’s not the movie they wanted or expected. NO, it wasn’t supposed to be Gladiator 2 and NO, Orlando Bloom was not supposed to be playing Maximus. I personally think that Kingdom of Heaven (either cut) is a far better film than Gladiator and probably my favorite ‘dudes with sandals and swords hacking at each other’ that isn’t set on Middle Earth.
And there is indeed a pattern of critics crapping on one ‘big’ picture for no other reason than to prove that they are ‘tough’ after overly-praising another. One could argue that Speed Racer and/or Hancock felt the wrath of Iron Man’s glowing reviews, and the not-that-bad Star Wars: the Clone Wars got slaughtered by critics who felt they were perhaps too generous in their positive reviews for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (and I say that as someone who liked Indy IV, but saw the Clone Wars movie after seeing the far-superior animated series). Even in 2009, many critics probably saw Star Trek before Wolverine, thus kinda-sorta continuing the pattern.
I’m a little disturbed by the big Fast Five drop. It’s a pretty fantastic action picture, and a template for how to do ‘Franchise All-Stars to the Rescue’ type films (oh, how I hope The Avengers is anywhere near as effective) But if Fast Five (a vastly superior film to the previous four) drops about what Fast & Furious does, what exactly is the motivation to make a better picture? As for the post-credit cookie, well (going to be as vague as possible, the prior incident in question was never actually objectively shown onscreen in the respective previous entry, which struck me as really odd at the time. And I forgot to stay for the credits when I saw it several weeks back, so I had to wait until enough people had seen it so that said surprise could be revealed.
Re Thor SPOILERS —
.
.
Because I knew what I did about The Avengers, I was genuinely surprised that Loki ‘died’ and that the portal to Earth was seemingly destroyed. Yes, they will figure something out, but it was nice of Marvel to let Branagh craft an ending that made sense for Thor that nonetheless caused several problems to be solved at the beginning of The Avengers. And yes, the emphasis on Portman and Hemsworth’s relationship is also a problem. While female leads have been frustratingly interchangeable in most big studio movies (why isn’t Ed Helms marrying Heather Graham in Hangover II?), the entire arc of Thor’s humility rests on his romance with Portman. Sure, Pepper Potts may be off at Stark conference and Betty Ross may just not be in Banner’s life anymore, but unless it turns out that Jane was actually a fembot (yes, LET’S take a dump on the emotional investment that any fan had in the original picture!) sent by Loki to destroy Thor, they are either going to have a Portman cameo or a big reason why she’s not in the picture.
Scott Mendelson
All absolutes are wrong, except this one: Scott Mendelson is inaccurate every time he says “critics” “thought” or “did” or “wanted” anything.
Chris… my comment is not about what I like or someone else likes. Read the actual reviews. Of course, some will genuinely like pretty much anything. But many of the positive reviews literally say, “For a film that could have been a disaster, it was okay.”. And then they list a lot of flaws while still saying positive.
This is not a case of another phenomenon that happens… when the overpraise loses rationality. Those are the ones IO really hates… when real critics seem to agree with the fanboy drool and I say, “Hold on… good but not great.”
And there is ZERO chance that Portman ha a major role in Thor. It’s not a financial option, much less a story option. More like a cameo of her in bed, sighing, as Thor suits up.
Avengers math is $20m for Downey, $10m for Whedon, $2 million for Sam Jackson, $1 million for Scarlett, $750k for Ruffalo, $500k for Renner, and $300k each for Thor and Cap. Those are my rough guesses.
That’s $35m above the line with a very effects heavy film with no assurance of $600m worldwide (though it’s possible). Portman will cameo (2 days work) for $500k… about the same as Gwynneth, about twice as much as Liv Tyler. Favreau will do it for laughs. Cheerleader for $100k. Etc. Are they going to add more millions to prime the pump, as the stars are Downey and the effects and no one does these for anything but the payday?
I can’t scroll on my iPhone… So corrections…
Downey, more like $25m, making the above the line starting point $40m… writing and directing, Whedon could be low too… the iPhone autocorrected “cheerleader” was Cheedle. And figure Skarsgard at that price point as well.
And Scott… Fast and Furious isn’t about whether the movie is good. All the others, save the first, dropped like stones because if you want to see that film, you went opening weekend. It’s not like you don’t know what you’re getting, rebooted or not. More people wanted to see this one because of ads and The Rock or whatever… and did. There is no more audience to grow, unless the audience expands in the post-theatrical world.
10 million for Whedon?
Really?
PS It’s also an oft repeated misnomer that this film reboots the franchise. Commercially, the last one (2009) did that. And this one is reaping the benefits of that success.
It’s not an outrageous amount for a big event director, Anghus. And Marvel has not really paid for directors before. (Favreau the second time.). But this is The Big Moment and Whedon brings big geek credibility… even if he has no big movie success.
And he’s writing.
I could be wrong and he could be doing it for $5m, but can’t imagine any less than that.
David, again, you know shit about me, and Chris called you out correctly. Given a pass, more like you need a bypass because you ain’t got no heart son!
You also are imaginatively bankrupt if you do not believe Portman is in Avengers. Screw that fucking fuzzy math of yours and think about it for a minute. Thor ends the way it does for a reason.
The way you imagined they would use Dr. Jane Foster in the Avenger film is not only fucking sexist, it’s fucking dumb. She’s the fucking key to getting Thor there, but you keep ignoring that for the fuzzy math.
SPOILERS: Scott, you can’t kill the God of Mischief. Loki obviously knows a thing or two about moving between the realms and his being there at the end just means the Avengers will be that much more awesome. Seriously, HULK might smack the shit out of Loki on screen. Think about that for a moment, will you?
Hemsworth said in a press conference that Portman would be in Avengers, but she has since said she would not be.
“I’m not in The Avengers, but I’m signed up for the next two (Thor) sequels if they are made. “
Remember: they said the same about Loki and you know.
IOv3:
Are you really that miserable? I mean I don’t always agree with Poland or any of the other people who take the time to comment here. Alas, you never seem to be a loss for crapping on all things Poland. Not to mention your know it all, condescending tone toward anyone here who would dare disagree with you.
I commend David for putting up with your constant bullshit. If it was my privately owned site, I’d have sent you packing a long time ago.
Some of us movie fans get really tired of your bullying ways and have decided to not post here because of people like you and Don.
If I wanted out and out hate, I’d go to the Huffington Post comments.
You and Don make this a considerably worse place to be.
I always have enjoyed reading Poland because I enjoy his style. I may not agree, but I understand. The two of you have made it nearly impossible to read with all your vitriol, hate and bizarre agendas. If you think David is so wrong, why are you here so frequently?
I’m not looking for a place where everyone is like minded. But EVERY time I come here lately, it’s either you or Don trying your best to stomp on David. Simple disagreement is one thing, consistent hate is another thing entirely.
Just kind of fed up with the constant Poland bashing.
I’m hoping Portman isn’t in Avengers tbh – it’s a clusterfuck ensemble piece as it is, trying to throw in all the baggage from the individual “prequels” is going to sandbag it for an hour or so.
— SPOILERS —
re: Thor ending, it seems that Loki can “project” between realms (that’s how I took the scene during the interrogation) and there was nothing to indicate that falling off the bridge results in death. Given that Loki also waffled about “other portals” when Heimdall confronted him about bringing in the Frost Giants, the shattering of the bridge never came across as that big a sacrifice to me (and Thor even commented on it before his invasion of Jotunheim, so he was aware of it as well).
I’m interested to see where they go with the Cosmic Cube tho – I thought that was more of a Fantastic Four thing.
KIND OF A SPOILER FOR THOR
Foamy, the cosmic cube has been associated a lot with The Red Skull. Which makes me wonder just what the tie in will be for Captain America.
There’s a picture of Weaving holding a cube.
http://www.movieweb.com/news/captain-americas-red-skull-holding-the-cosmic-cube
drumroll…
Agree with HoopersX – Also have to say I read this blog daily and am never interested in trying to discuss because of the bizarre way a few members tend to take everything personally and attack others for stuff like box office predictions and reviews. It is so tedious to see you guys do that. The way you identify with the commercial success of a picture, I really can’t understand.
Previous post was too long. Now, Hooper, you are full of it. Seriously, absolutely full of it. I am not condescending but authoritative because you or anyone bashing anything I like or love, is going to get a response. I have no idea why this blog is full of people that love shitting on things but those same people get all persnickety when you respond back to them. If I were a bully. Trust me, you’d know. You also seem to have forgotten that David bust my balls and I bust his back. The guy constantly takes shots at me, he’s taking one in this thread, and I am going to take shots back. Sorry if that upsets you but you stating that I hate David is so full of shit that it literally smells. Seriously, read the entire blog before you post next time.
Now Gus, you do realize that David is basically stating Thor received a pass this weekend, and that he’s attacking his colleagues because of their reviews, right?
Outside of that, you are another pacifist, middle of the road guy, who seems to lack the ability to root for something. While Marvel comics are lacking at this point. I love those characters, I love those worlds, and I root for those films to succeed. The same goes with DC or any comic property that I like or love. The fact that you do not get ROOTING for something is your deal but please, don’t agree with people like Hooper because that way, you might win the SPOT THE LOONY contest and not him.
If there was a like button, I would push if for Hoopersx and Gus right now.
Never got the constant “Poland-bashing.” a constructive critique or gentle ribbing here and there is fine (maybe even necessary), but these days, it feels to me like many of you are coming into a man’s home who’s just cooked you a free meal and saying,
“You can’t cook worth a damn! You should hang up your apron in shame! I wouldn’t feed this gruel to my dog! By the way, what time should I be here for dinner tomorrow?”
lol!
Again, if you agree with those two yokels. You are agreeing that you do not read the blog. Seriously, you are basically sticking a proverbial trumphet up your ass and trying to play it by agreeing with those absolutely nonsensical posts.
“he’s attacking his colleagues because of their reviews”
In what world is ‘it seemed as the film got a critical pass’ an attack on DP’s colleagues? I would have gone with ‘warm reception’ instead, but attack it is not.
FS, he’s questioning them as only David can, because they dared to like a movie he thinks THUCKS. It’s how he works. Again… INCEPTION… and you read this blog. You should know how this works already!
Aaaaaand curtain
So how many barefoot girls will there be in The Avengers?
And did anybody read Singer’s post-mortem on Supes Returns? : http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/bryan-singer-why-superman-returns-179292 WTF was he smoking, both during this interview and while making the movie? Is it normal behavior for the director of an action movie to want to swipe elements from a chick-flick like The Devil Wears Prada to draw in female viewers?
I did read that, and yeah – he’s missing the point by a wide margin. A bit like the rationalization on Transformers 2 – it was bad because it was set in the desert. Riiiight.