May 19, 2024
Review: Little Women (no spoilers) - The Hot Blog
Box Office First Look - The Hot Blog
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree - The Hot Blog
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
Look, it must truly suck to either A) watch masses of people prefer these movies over that precious Albanian film about the gay blind goatherd or B) not be able to get back to a place where you can still enjoy these “popcorn” flicks because you can’t ratchet down your brain to ignore all the silly stuff (or both).
But holy crap is the knee-jerk hipster hate for these films getting beyond old. We get it, they’re dumb and you don’t like them. Fine. But did it ever occur to you that without them, the studios would be doing so much worse and some of the films you adore so much more would still be a script no one can afford to make?
An Albanian film about a gay blind goatherd would probably be amazing.
I think we may have a straw man here. Let’s consider the premise: the superhero film audience (they’re a consistently monolithic entity, apparently) wants in these films the opposite of what they say they do. But really, how many are actually “saying” what they want at all? We seem to be implying someone representing this group holds a weekly press conference touting its every lofty ideal. Yes, everyone’s tweeting, liking and posting all over the place, but I am not confident they a) to a person uphold “consistent characterization and original storytelling” or b) represent the full entirety of that film’s audience.
Of course it’s a straw man. He doesn’t like these movies and is twisting himself into knots to try to explain why the stupid masses do like them–this is tiresome whining and poorly argued.