May 19, 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
I see Ray has given us space here, so continuing, I agree with what both of you said JS and Anghus. The fan service stuff really takes away from the movie. What made FIRST CONTACT and WRATH OF KHAN great movies was that they inserted interesting storylines in a fresh new way. Of course, this new timeline doesn’t have those storylines, which opens the way for something totally and completely new. But instead, Abrams recycles a plotline from number 2, and it makes little coherent sense.
What was most disheartening were the audience guffaws when the KHAAAN scream came. I guess Abrams might be right, that a lot of people want this.
The biggest question: where do they boldly go from here? Do they feel so beholden to what came before that they keep returning to the well, especially with the 50th anniversary coming up? What they need to do is make a clean break with the past, or barring that, fully reintegrate and merge with the original timeline. One or the other. Because this “new take on a familiar story” was pandering.
Btw, is Benicio Del Toro, who turned down the role of Khan, the only Hispanic actor in the universe?
I don’t know how they can make more movies since no one in this universe can die anymore.
” Do they feel so beholden to what came before that they keep returning to the well, especially with the 50th anniversary coming up?”
This is my problem with all these films. It seems like this is ‘Generation Riff’. Every filmmaker is so beholden to the past and regurgitates it with marked regularity. New stories aren’t as important as rehashing something familiar. And quite often it’s detrimental to the story being told.
Look at the future. 2 Marvel movies a year. One Star Wars movie a year. We’re moving into a studio system where fan service comes before all else.
Even ‘original’ stuff like Oblivion is so busy rehashing earlier works that it almost feels like cinema’s most respectful rip off.
The very first decision they made — to slavishly remake tWoK — doomed the film. Some of the individual choices (flipping Kirk and Spock in the death scene) were worthwhile, and I honestly didn’t have a problem with them saving Kirk’s life they way they did (made more sense than what they did in tSfS, after all), but all I could do was roll my eyes at KAAAAAAAAAAAHN!!!
And why, exactly, couldn’t they thaw out a second popsicle rather than insist on getting Kahn back? (That said, I liked Uhura beaming down; it worked with the Spock/Uhura arc.)
My problem with the whole death thing is that in tWoK, Kirk and Spock had served together 20 years. So it was a tad more poignant than these two, who still seem to be far short of a working relationship much less a friendship.
And also… who cares?
There’s a whole generation of moviegoers (including myself) that will see this movie because of the last one and nothing more. They don’t carry with them all the baggage of the previous movies so they won’t even notice or care much about callbacks to previous movies/characters/storylines. I was born in ’77 and never saw a Star Trek movie other than IV so for me the only reason I want to see this one is because it looks awesome and I loved the last one.
Why is it so important that the movie respect all that came before it if the whole point of the last one was to restart the franchise newly?
well, if the point is to “restart the franchise newly”, then why remake ‘wrath of khan’ (only stupider)? why not attempt a new and fresh khan arc instead of continuing to rehash/retread/reboot/redo?
Franchise = Fast Food Stand
“Why is it so important that the movie respect all that came before it if the whole point of the last one was to restart the franchise newly?”
This.
“Btw, is Benicio Del Toro, who turned down the role of Khan, the only Hispanic actor in the universe?”
Khan is actually supposed to be Indian, but since Ricardo Montalban was the only swarthy actor in Hollywood….
(And just in the nick of time we have this article making the same point. Or, as the funny caption says: “I’m as Sikh as pico de gallo.”)
(Be careful in the comments section there–the co-writer recently started a flame war by writing an article calling anyone who opposes a black Human Torch a racist. Doesn’t matter that the guy’s been white since Kennedy was president. Some of the discussion was really quite funny, including the belief among many that the best actor in the room gets the part, even if the actor is completely wrong for the part–just rewrite it!–leading to the question of whether Philip Seymour Hoffman should then be allowed to play Rosa Parks. I guess you had to be there.)
Looks like the first weekend take for Star Trek Wrathc of Cumberbatch is going to be underwhelming. It’s kindof amazing that they picked one of the most iconic villains of all time and decided not to market the villain at all. They probably lost tens of millions on that choice alone.
Spaceship underwater? WTF?