BYOB Archive for March, 2009

Watchmen BYOB In The Non-IO Era

Our very own Comedian has been thrown out of the window for 48 hours for verbally napalming the blog and attempting to rape reasonable discourse.
Hopefully, a huge opening weekend for Watchmen will calm him down, as he has, at times been a valued commenter to this blog. In the meantime, feel free to throw ideas around in a civil way for a while…

89 Comments »

BYOB – NO Watchmen… For Those Who Wish

53 Comments »

BYO Watchmen ALL SPOILERS, ALL THE TIME

lytblue2.jpg

32 Comments »

BYO Watchmen – No Spoilers, Please

17 Comments »

BYOB – Monday 030209

Weirdest thing I heard this morning from a fairly big producer:
“There are no scripts! There’s just nothing! All the scripts that are out there are crap, directors are packing it in for ’09 or attaching themselves to a couple of long shots being packaged for Cannes, but there are just no completed scripts out there! The distributors are going to start hurting for product as the studios are getting gunshy about even greenlighting programmers.”
Personally, as someone who works as a screenwriter, I am finding this to be oddly true. Long-dead mid-level projects are coming off shelves, getting dusted off and offers are being made to talent on movies that weren’t good enough to be going forward a few years back. I’ve been shocked to hear some of the stuff that’s got money on it now.
And I’m not talking about a resurrection of the spec market, but of producers who have been running around with a script and a couple of loose B-level attachments suddenly being treated better than bigger ones with, say, some valuable piece of underlying material and an A-list director – but no completed draft.
It’s like what you hear about “new pilot season” – completed pilot scripts have been given more weight than high-level writers/showrunners with high concept pitches.
And they say no one reads in L.A….
Posted by: SJRubinstein at March 2, 2009 12:56 PM

29 Comments »

BYOB 030109 aka The Don Lewis Screening Thread

28 Comments »

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