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
Is anybody NOT a gift-card person? Depends to where, I suppose.
I read your column almost daily. Had to “engage” today. Overall, I dig the cross-promotion so long as you’re honest about it (which you were today – thx). I think the host Sami fluctuates towards douchey too much. He’s a little too Billy Bush and that doesn’t match the tone of your site. They’re mix of social media is good and the editing is above-par. Make Sami less tabloidy (he’s having fun, but still..) and maybe you have a winner. Hope this helps
Feels awfully generic, and doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know or could easily find just by going to rotten tomatoes. However, for the MSN crowd, I suppose it would be fine.
had no problems with the video ..if they want more involvement stick this on youtube .
will they mention any small indie movies ?
It’s not terrible. Just not a must watch. It definitely has the condensed ET/Access Hollywood vibe. Doesn’t really speak to the film fan so much as the casual one.
Doesn’t really add anything at all to a movie crowds conversation and is probably too long for a casual film person to watch.
Hard to get worked up one way or another about this. Like Michael, I’m not sure who the audience is (but certainly the casual movie viewer will get more out of it than a true “filmfan”). Everything about it is “not quite.” Not quite a review show, not quite a consumer guide, not quite pure promo.
The thing I got was that it’s trying too hard to be right up the middle in its audience and too general to be informative to all but the people who maybe go to 3 movies a year. Yeah, it has a joke or two to try and push it to people who like a little entertainment with movie talk, but it’s Talk Soup Lite and rushes by too fast to have any effect. It references the Tomatometer for two movies even though the reviews haven’t dropped for most media outlets to make a grand conclusion and doesn’t mention any real specifics besides the comment about the character animation not being the best. I could go to Rotten Tomatoes and take a look at the synopsis for the movies and some of the reviews and be more better informed in half the time.
As a person who once lived in an apartment without a dishwasher, I’m not too rough on certain things being disposable as long as they have a purpose, but there doesn’t seem to be any entertainment or value out of watching this for me.
Finally, if the gift card’s in a place around where I live, of course I’d be interested. T-shirts……. well, if it’s white, I don’t mind because I always need white t-shirts for various sports, undershirts, and other such things.
Sami needs to sit in a stationary chair that doesn’t swivel.
The editing on a few points seemed a bit jerky.
The segment is long enough that he’d probably benefit from a co-host to show off some debate. Him reading off twitter comments from people I don’t know with ridiculous handles isn’t the sort of thing I have any interest in.
I think I’d prefer it if it had some lesser known films. It’s funny cuz the guy seemed like he was rushing a bit to squeeze a lot in, like that guy on the Yahoo TV in A Minute, and yet, I found this seemed to drag a bit.
I agree w/the other posts. Very Access Hollywoodish. Doesn’t seem like it would deliver anything more than idle chit chat and I don’t see it giving a negative review. It’s almost like something I’d expect to see teasing movies on a plane. “For $5 you can have Directtv but for only $6 you can see Cars and Bad Teacher” I don’t think it did enough of a sales job for anyone to rush out an see either movie but if you were stuck in a confined space at least you’d know a little bit about what you’re possibly getting yourself into.
As far as interactive goes, I’m guessing the message board itself would be the last place I’d want to post. I sometimes roll my eyes at how high minded people can get on here but it is intelligent discussion for the most part. Or, well reasoned would be a better way of putting it. I’d fear the the general level of that clip the audience for that site would be ones who use terms like Bradgelina and care who the stars were seen talking to at the premiere party.
I’d take a T-shirt, though.
“Tweet us, and you too can have your comment shown on our screen for 1.5 seconds while I paraphrase it to ‘liked it’ or ‘hated it’!”
Just seems like more noise about films we already know a TON about. The twitter shout-outs (or, reading twitter comments) are hard to follow and sound like some military code (JahBoy1777 says….”).
The video looks crisp though and I didn’t mind Sami. He felt kind of generic though. Like he was hired to be someone movie fans could relate to instead of hiring someone people are already a fan of online. Unless Sami writes or blogs somewhere and I didn’t know about it. It just seems like a superfluous addition to MSN that would gum up my page.