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
I know that they’re represented in another box set, but I think that the classic monster movies from the 30s are poorly served with only one title. I know “Dracula” started it all, but maybe “Bride of Frankenstein” illustrates better how the studio survived the Great Depression with this genre.
I have to say, with just a few exceptions, mainly the Spielberg stuff, this is an underwhelming collection.
I also feel that DRACULA was a bad choice. Most people agree that it’s a creaky affair made by people who still hadn’t gotten used to making “talkies”. The difference between it and FRANKENSTEIN, barely a year apart, is monumental. DO THE RIGHT THING is great, but almost serves only to show how gutless most of these films are. (Just because a film won a Best Picture Oscar doesn’t mean it’s aged well or that people really care any more. I don’t know anyone who would want to watch OUT OF AFRICA or THE STING these days.) Why not the original SCARFACE, and DePalma’s much better CARLITO’S WAY?
just another shiny cash grab…this one doesn’t even look like they tried…
So they’re celebrating 100 years of moviemaking by choosing only 20% of the collection from the first 50 years?
(golf clap)
Ill take The Sting over Scarface any day.
I wonder if the concept of franchises in movies was invented by Universal with the horror genre. If you think about it, “House of Frankenstein” (1944) and “House of Dracula” (1945) were early attempts and exploiting a franchise with all their ‘stars’ just like Disney did this year with “The Avengers”.
Sam, weren’t they a mess for the first 50 years, surviving on horror, Francis the Talking Mule and Ma and Pa Kettle, only hitting their stride after merging with MCA?
Though I am suprised to not see a Douglas Sirk film anywhere in there, wasn’t he their marquee guy for awhile.
And I do find it blasphemous that they would include Fast and Furious over Smokey and the Bandit or Blues Brothers.
And as just a personal favorite any Universal collection feels incomplete without Babe.
And I think Franchises might predate Dracula and Frankenstein, wouldn’t all those Andy Hardy movies or the Keystone cops have been seen as the first?
Only 3 movies made before 1958, but 4 made within the past 11 years. OK. Fine.
I don’t think it’s a bad collection but a little more explanation would sure help explain it (for instance, that “Shadow of a Doubt” and Hitchcock’s amazing run in the 50s, including “Rear Window” and “Vertigo” and “NXNW” through “Psycho,” was off limits because it’s part of a different DVD “celebration”).
They should call this “The LexG Collection,” since it certainly seems to cater to his taste in recent color films, especially from the 80s.
Hcat: DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN are from 1931; the Andy Hardy movies began in the late 30s. The first franchises were arguably the B-western stars. And they did much more than just horror: the Deanna Durbin musicals, the John Stahl soap operas, lots of westerns, crime thrillers and comedies (at one point they had Abbott & Costello, Olsen and Johnson AND The Ritz Brothers under contract), the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, the swing musicals of the 40s, and so much more. Their reputation suffers because so much of this material is generally unavailable, since it’s more important to reissue JAWS and SCARFACE for the 19th goddamn time.
Out of Africa is boring. The Sting is a classic. I’d put that and Jaws on top of that list.
They should get ride of Despicable Me and put on “An American Tale.”
The Deer Hunter didn’t make the cut, that’s a Best Pic winner.
Blues Brothers should be up there, and A Coal Miner’s Daughter – which is a beautiful film if you haven’t seen it.
Fuck the Breakfast Club – seriously. Pillow Talk – barf. Try watching it. Seriously. Try. Yeesh.
Gonzalo, yeah, sequels have been around a while (the local TV station ran marathons every week–Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, Three Stooges, Abbott & Costello….), but in the past it felt like only B-movies got sequels and we didn’t mind all that much because, well, they were just one step above trash.
But now if an A-movie can’t generate an entire franchise then everyone acts like there’s something seriously wrong with it (I am sure there’s a suite full of executives who’d sell a body part or two if Nolan would only smell the cash and crank out a few Inception sequels, or prequels, or a reboot or two).
I am not positive but Hitchcocks run in the fifties might have been over at Paramount (who I am pretty sure also released Psycho). And the original Scarface might have been RKO, so even if they have the rights now I can see why they would omit those titles from this set.
Cadavra – I didn’t mean to imply they were just horror, and as you said it might be availability that has kept their pre 60’s successes a mystery. I certainly come across the Marx Brothers more often than the Ritz. It seems as if you look at how well Fox and Warners are able to package their history (Fox’s 75 year collection was much more evenly distributed among the eras), Universal doesn’t seem to be as adept at mining their back catalog.
Actually, Pillow Talk is quite amusing. And, more important, it’s representative of its time. I actually think you could make a stronger case for it being in this lineup than, say, Scarface, if your whole point is to give an overview of the studio’s entire output over the past 100 years.
Tough crowd. I’m sure if I saw a list of Uni titles I’d point to more than a few and say “uh, what about this?? how’d they miss that?!” but studio branding of every film released since the advent of “talkies” I don’t know. I’d just look at the list and see if there are a decent number of films I would watch and want to own for the money or would I be better off picking select ones on my own. To me, this looks like a decent box to own. Now, the question is price. Not sure where I’d cap out. Even if it were $124.99, I’d say it’s not a bad price but since it’s not something I was hoping for, I could easily live without it.
Where’s NIGHTHAWKS and BUSTIN’ LOOSE?
all these titles look like they’d sell at 5 bucks at walmart
checked out pillow talk tailer – horrible… something Kate Hudson or Jennifer Aniston would be in ..
Actually, now that I think about it, you know what’s really conspicuous by its absence from this lineup? Airport. Seriously. Not a great movie by any stretch. But arguably the kickoff for the entire disaster movie genre.
It’s good, but does anyone have a desire to watch Apollo 13 again?
It’s funny you say that, Krillian, because by sheer coincidence, I saw a clip from Apollo 13 on some news show around the time of the recent Mars probe landing, and thought to myself: “Gee, I haven’t seen that since the ’90s, I’d like to see it again.” Go figure.
Science teachers feel a whole lotta love for Apollo 13, too. And Bill Nye. Gee, now that I think about it, there do seem to be an awful lotta geeks in that crowd….
Apollo 13 was overrated, but I get why some curriculum units were built around it.
Pillow Talk is a terrific movie; frothy and fun. Lighten up you guys.
Pillow Talk – bedroom problems
Rock Hudson feigns gay to get Doris Day
Lover Come Back is great, glossy fun as well.
All of the complaining about these movies and no one mentions Mamma Mia, the worst of all of these by a mile? That and Fast and the Furious (which I like OK, though Fast Five is the only one of those movies I really enjoy) seem like weird populist ideas of what’s been “important” to Universal in recent years. I understand they’re not going to include like, Public Enemies or Scott Pilgrim or something, but it’s a shame to see a studio who has produced a bunch of really smart and/or cool movies in the last few years have it reduced to “the Mamma Mia studio.”
I’ll also throw in for Pillow Talk: it’s very funny, charming, and all-around enjoyable. A nice, representative choice for this kind of thing.
I also prefer Carlito’s Way to Scarface but was that ever going to happen? But on the other hand, is it that important to include Scarface on a movie-fan-bait box set because, what? Rappers like it? Is that movie really particularly influential beyond that sphere? And I love De Palma and Pacino… that’s just never been even close to my favorite of either. Carlito’s Way rules, though.
Also, wasn’t Psycho a Universal release? Why The Birds over Psycho? Bizarre.
I’m not personally a huge Breakfast Club or Animal House fan but I can see how they make it in for their particular genres.
So yeah, replace the Hitchcock and ditch Scarface, Out of Africa, Fast and the Furious, Mamma Mia, and Despicable Me for stuff with a little more staying power.
Also weird that they couldn’t get their DVD/Blu versions congruent by getting a Schindler’s List Blu out to coincide.
Also, can I just mention again how rad Universal was in 2009: their summer slate was Drag Me to Hell, Land of the Lost (underrated!), Public Enemies, and Funny People. What a cool bunch of movies [that made them relatively little money].
This set is dumb, few will buy it, and no one should care.
I think some titles — like Psycho — simply didn’t qualify because they were originally released by other studios, and Universal took over rights long after the fact. The funny thing about Psycho is, Hitchcock actually shot it at Universal,where he was doing his TV show at the time, but it was released by Paramount. The outdoor set — the motel with the fake house looming in the back — remains an attraction on the Universal Studio tour. Years ago, I had the chance to actually go inside the house — a mock-up, of course — while I was on the Universal lot to interview Anthony Perkins for Psycho III. There was all sorts of graffiti either written on or carved into the various sections of the framework. My fave: “Norman Loves Mother.”
Ah ha! Thanks, Joe — I didn’t realize that Psycho originally came out from Paramount. I guess I had always subconsciously associated it with Universal because of the outdoor set.
I fell asleep looking at this list somewhere around 1985.
Hitchcock retained the rights to many of his Paramount productions, such as REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO and PSYCHO, which is why they ended up at Universal when he did.
PILLOW TALK has dated somewhat; LOVER COME BACK and SEND ME NO FLOWERS are much better Doris/Rock/Tony pictures, though PT merits its place as the one that started it all. And yes, AIRPORT should have been included. Saw it again recently at the Wilder and it remains a helluva lotta fun.