Interview: Picking Up on William Friedkin's Cruising

Summary

William Friedkin will forever be remembered as one of the legendary New Hollywood directors of the 1970s. Read on for our sit-down with the man who made such classics as The Exorcist for his insights on Shakespeare, DVD restoration, the attainability of another Citizen Kane and the remastering of his 1980 gay S&M serial killer pic, Cruising. Back to Article

Comments

Void Moon

Void Moon

You're really Bruce Campbell.....and I'm Denzel Washington. lol

Sep 15 - 06:31 PM

Some guy you dont know

Bruce Campbell

Hi, Denzel Washington.

I loved you in Training Day .

Sep 15 - 07:09 PM

arendr

Arend Anton

What's the last great film Coppola made? Does that lessen his standing as a great filmmaker? Not really.

Sep 15 - 08:03 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

*Sigh*

I never wrote GREAT.

I wrote GOOD.

Coppola's last GOOD film was THE RAINMAKER (1997).

AND he has a new film coming out this year with Tim Roth which looks GOOD.

When was the last GREAT film Scorsese made? GOODFELLAS

That doesn't lessen his GOOD outings like CASINO, THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR, AND THE DEPARTED (which won the Oscar).

Go lookup GOOD and GREAT in the dictionary.

Sep 15 - 08:34 PM

arendr

Arend Anton

You're really clutching at straws with your defense there. Look, I understand what you're trying to say. What the hell happened to Roland Joffe? His career started out great, but has he made anything close to a good film since The Mission? But the point is that they've actually made excellent films and should be judged as accomplished filmmakers.

Sep 15 - 09:17 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Grasping at straws? lol

It's simply, really. Friedkin hasn't made a good film in 30 years. He fell off.

That's what I wrote in my first post.

And it's true.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

No....I just get a couple of guys that no zilch (and who clearly don't have good reading comprehension, since they can't grasp simple words in my post) whining and throwing false 'facts' at me as some sort of proof against what I wrote.

That's not grasping at straws. : )

Either some of you guys need to go back to school to learn basic English 101, or seriously need to get checked for 'head-in-*** syndrome' which seems to go on a lot around here.

Check yourself and respect yourself.

Sep 15 - 09:41 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Someone needs to go back to school to learn basic English 101, huh? In your words, son: "...a couple of guys that no zilch..." Now that's funny. (You brought it up.)

As for serving, you've only served up your own deluded understanding of "facts" especially regarding Scorsese. Eat up this serving:

Scorsese does struggle to get financial backing. You won't believe me, but it's true. I think the man is a genius, a gifted artist where words cannot describe his influence and importance. Yet, his films are not the financial blockbusters many might believe. In short, his films don't make squat in receipts. That is why he struggles to get films made. And even when folks say, "Sure, we'll back your film", he still struggles.

For instance, the Weinsteins promised to back Scorsese's complete script and vision for Gangs... and at the last moment tightened the wallet. All that talk about filmed scenes being cut is mythology because the scenes were never shot in the first place. The Weinsteins did an about face and refused to pay for them...scenes that were to flesh out the DiCaprio character as an orphan and whatnot. (Gangs was a bomb: budget: $97 million, box office came in around $78 million.)

The only way Scorsese has been able to get anything funded recently has been his association with DiCaprio, which he's happy about because it gets him regular work. (Aviator only made $102 million, Departed only $132) Otherwise, Scorsese would be struggling to get anything made. Raging Bull was not a financial success and had UA looking over his shoulder and wondered how they were going to market it. Most of his films have not been blockbusters or modest financial successes by any stretch of the imagination. King of Comedy? After Hours? Last Temptation? Age of Innocence? Bringing Out The Dead? Every one of those was nearly impossible to get funded...all low budget, especially considering the great director he is.

Color of Money was a moderate success ($13 million) considering the financial success of his previous films. Goodfellas not so much a financial success considering how much influence it's had on popular culture and films ($47 million box office, $25 million budget). Cape Fear did quite well (almost $80 million made with a $35 million budget). He had to go back to Goodfellas territory with Casino because it was something that could get made, but that prospect fizzled when it made only $42 million with a budget of over $50 million (a bomb).

If people were beating Scorsese's door down just to throw money at him, why did he have to struggle to get Kundun made? His last two films saw decent returns, again financially speaking, given his track record. Getting funding for his documentary projects about European cinema? Forget about it. The man's films receive great reviews, but box office intake is less than stellar. But by and large, Scorsese has struggled to have anyone float him financially on his films. Why did it take him over 20 years to get Gangs... made? No one would give him a freaking dime for it, that's why.

These are what are called "facts", in case you didn't know what they looked like. Looks like somebody needs to actually READ those film history books instead of letting them sit looking all pretty on the bookshelf.

(An aside: you're right that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are little films...they're two of his best comedies to me. He needs to stick to his tales of phallic fingered aliens and repressed homosexuals, you know, stuff he actually knows something about.)

Sep 16 - 02:26 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

*Sigh*

I never wrote GREAT.

I wrote GOOD.

Coppola's last GOOD film was THE RAINMAKER (1997).

AND he has a new film coming out this year with Tim Roth which looks GOOD.

When was the last GREAT film Scorsese made? GOODFELLAS

That doesn't lessen his GOOD outings like CASINO, THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR, AND THE DEPARTED (which won the Oscar).

Go lookup GOOD and GREAT in the dictionary.

Sep 15 - 08:34 PM

arendr

Arend Anton

You're really clutching at straws with your defense there. Look, I understand what you're trying to say. What the hell happened to Roland Joffe? His career started out great, but has he made anything close to a good film since The Mission? But the point is that they've actually made excellent films and should be judged as accomplished filmmakers.

Sep 15 - 09:17 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Grasping at straws? lol

It's simply, really. Friedkin hasn't made a good film in 30 years. He fell off.

That's what I wrote in my first post.

And it's true.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

No....I just get a couple of guys that no zilch (and who clearly don't have good reading comprehension, since they can't grasp simple words in my post) whining and throwing false 'facts' at me as some sort of proof against what I wrote.

That's not grasping at straws. : )

Either some of you guys need to go back to school to learn basic English 101, or seriously need to get checked for 'head-in-*** syndrome' which seems to go on a lot around here.

Check yourself and respect yourself.

Sep 15 - 09:41 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Someone needs to go back to school to learn basic English 101, huh? In your words, son: "...a couple of guys that no zilch..." Now that's funny. (You brought it up.)

As for serving, you've only served up your own deluded understanding of "facts" especially regarding Scorsese. Eat up this serving:

Scorsese does struggle to get financial backing. You won't believe me, but it's true. I think the man is a genius, a gifted artist where words cannot describe his influence and importance. Yet, his films are not the financial blockbusters many might believe. In short, his films don't make squat in receipts. That is why he struggles to get films made. And even when folks say, "Sure, we'll back your film", he still struggles.

For instance, the Weinsteins promised to back Scorsese's complete script and vision for Gangs... and at the last moment tightened the wallet. All that talk about filmed scenes being cut is mythology because the scenes were never shot in the first place. The Weinsteins did an about face and refused to pay for them...scenes that were to flesh out the DiCaprio character as an orphan and whatnot. (Gangs was a bomb: budget: $97 million, box office came in around $78 million.)

The only way Scorsese has been able to get anything funded recently has been his association with DiCaprio, which he's happy about because it gets him regular work. (Aviator only made $102 million, Departed only $132) Otherwise, Scorsese would be struggling to get anything made. Raging Bull was not a financial success and had UA looking over his shoulder and wondered how they were going to market it. Most of his films have not been blockbusters or modest financial successes by any stretch of the imagination. King of Comedy? After Hours? Last Temptation? Age of Innocence? Bringing Out The Dead? Every one of those was nearly impossible to get funded...all low budget, especially considering the great director he is.

Color of Money was a moderate success ($13 million) considering the financial success of his previous films. Goodfellas not so much a financial success considering how much influence it's had on popular culture and films ($47 million box office, $25 million budget). Cape Fear did quite well (almost $80 million made with a $35 million budget). He had to go back to Goodfellas territory with Casino because it was something that could get made, but that prospect fizzled when it made only $42 million with a budget of over $50 million (a bomb).

If people were beating Scorsese's door down just to throw money at him, why did he have to struggle to get Kundun made? His last two films saw decent returns, again financially speaking, given his track record. Getting funding for his documentary projects about European cinema? Forget about it. The man's films receive great reviews, but box office intake is less than stellar. But by and large, Scorsese has struggled to have anyone float him financially on his films. Why did it take him over 20 years to get Gangs... made? No one would give him a freaking dime for it, that's why.

These are what are called "facts", in case you didn't know what they looked like. Looks like somebody needs to actually READ those film history books instead of letting them sit looking all pretty on the bookshelf.

(An aside: you're right that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are little films...they're two of his best comedies to me. He needs to stick to his tales of phallic fingered aliens and repressed homosexuals, you know, stuff he actually knows something about.)

Sep 16 - 02:26 AM

arendr

Arend Anton

You're really clutching at straws with your defense there. Look, I understand what you're trying to say. What the hell happened to Roland Joffe? His career started out great, but has he made anything close to a good film since The Mission? But the point is that they've actually made excellent films and should be judged as accomplished filmmakers.

Sep 15 - 09:17 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Grasping at straws? lol

It's simply, really. Friedkin hasn't made a good film in 30 years. He fell off.

That's what I wrote in my first post.

And it's true.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

No....I just get a couple of guys that no zilch (and who clearly don't have good reading comprehension, since they can't grasp simple words in my post) whining and throwing false 'facts' at me as some sort of proof against what I wrote.

That's not grasping at straws. : )

Either some of you guys need to go back to school to learn basic English 101, or seriously need to get checked for 'head-in-*** syndrome' which seems to go on a lot around here.

Check yourself and respect yourself.

Sep 15 - 09:41 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Someone needs to go back to school to learn basic English 101, huh? In your words, son: "...a couple of guys that no zilch..." Now that's funny. (You brought it up.)

As for serving, you've only served up your own deluded understanding of "facts" especially regarding Scorsese. Eat up this serving:

Scorsese does struggle to get financial backing. You won't believe me, but it's true. I think the man is a genius, a gifted artist where words cannot describe his influence and importance. Yet, his films are not the financial blockbusters many might believe. In short, his films don't make squat in receipts. That is why he struggles to get films made. And even when folks say, "Sure, we'll back your film", he still struggles.

For instance, the Weinsteins promised to back Scorsese's complete script and vision for Gangs... and at the last moment tightened the wallet. All that talk about filmed scenes being cut is mythology because the scenes were never shot in the first place. The Weinsteins did an about face and refused to pay for them...scenes that were to flesh out the DiCaprio character as an orphan and whatnot. (Gangs was a bomb: budget: $97 million, box office came in around $78 million.)

The only way Scorsese has been able to get anything funded recently has been his association with DiCaprio, which he's happy about because it gets him regular work. (Aviator only made $102 million, Departed only $132) Otherwise, Scorsese would be struggling to get anything made. Raging Bull was not a financial success and had UA looking over his shoulder and wondered how they were going to market it. Most of his films have not been blockbusters or modest financial successes by any stretch of the imagination. King of Comedy? After Hours? Last Temptation? Age of Innocence? Bringing Out The Dead? Every one of those was nearly impossible to get funded...all low budget, especially considering the great director he is.

Color of Money was a moderate success ($13 million) considering the financial success of his previous films. Goodfellas not so much a financial success considering how much influence it's had on popular culture and films ($47 million box office, $25 million budget). Cape Fear did quite well (almost $80 million made with a $35 million budget). He had to go back to Goodfellas territory with Casino because it was something that could get made, but that prospect fizzled when it made only $42 million with a budget of over $50 million (a bomb).

If people were beating Scorsese's door down just to throw money at him, why did he have to struggle to get Kundun made? His last two films saw decent returns, again financially speaking, given his track record. Getting funding for his documentary projects about European cinema? Forget about it. The man's films receive great reviews, but box office intake is less than stellar. But by and large, Scorsese has struggled to have anyone float him financially on his films. Why did it take him over 20 years to get Gangs... made? No one would give him a freaking dime for it, that's why.

These are what are called "facts", in case you didn't know what they looked like. Looks like somebody needs to actually READ those film history books instead of letting them sit looking all pretty on the bookshelf.

(An aside: you're right that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are little films...they're two of his best comedies to me. He needs to stick to his tales of phallic fingered aliens and repressed homosexuals, you know, stuff he actually knows something about.)

Sep 16 - 02:26 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Grasping at straws? lol

It's simply, really. Friedkin hasn't made a good film in 30 years. He fell off.

That's what I wrote in my first post.

And it's true.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

No....I just get a couple of guys that no zilch (and who clearly don't have good reading comprehension, since they can't grasp simple words in my post) whining and throwing false 'facts' at me as some sort of proof against what I wrote.

That's not grasping at straws. : )

Either some of you guys need to go back to school to learn basic English 101, or seriously need to get checked for 'head-in-*** syndrome' which seems to go on a lot around here.

Check yourself and respect yourself.

Sep 15 - 09:41 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Someone needs to go back to school to learn basic English 101, huh? In your words, son: "...a couple of guys that no zilch..." Now that's funny. (You brought it up.)

As for serving, you've only served up your own deluded understanding of "facts" especially regarding Scorsese. Eat up this serving:

Scorsese does struggle to get financial backing. You won't believe me, but it's true. I think the man is a genius, a gifted artist where words cannot describe his influence and importance. Yet, his films are not the financial blockbusters many might believe. In short, his films don't make squat in receipts. That is why he struggles to get films made. And even when folks say, "Sure, we'll back your film", he still struggles.

For instance, the Weinsteins promised to back Scorsese's complete script and vision for Gangs... and at the last moment tightened the wallet. All that talk about filmed scenes being cut is mythology because the scenes were never shot in the first place. The Weinsteins did an about face and refused to pay for them...scenes that were to flesh out the DiCaprio character as an orphan and whatnot. (Gangs was a bomb: budget: $97 million, box office came in around $78 million.)

The only way Scorsese has been able to get anything funded recently has been his association with DiCaprio, which he's happy about because it gets him regular work. (Aviator only made $102 million, Departed only $132) Otherwise, Scorsese would be struggling to get anything made. Raging Bull was not a financial success and had UA looking over his shoulder and wondered how they were going to market it. Most of his films have not been blockbusters or modest financial successes by any stretch of the imagination. King of Comedy? After Hours? Last Temptation? Age of Innocence? Bringing Out The Dead? Every one of those was nearly impossible to get funded...all low budget, especially considering the great director he is.

Color of Money was a moderate success ($13 million) considering the financial success of his previous films. Goodfellas not so much a financial success considering how much influence it's had on popular culture and films ($47 million box office, $25 million budget). Cape Fear did quite well (almost $80 million made with a $35 million budget). He had to go back to Goodfellas territory with Casino because it was something that could get made, but that prospect fizzled when it made only $42 million with a budget of over $50 million (a bomb).

If people were beating Scorsese's door down just to throw money at him, why did he have to struggle to get Kundun made? His last two films saw decent returns, again financially speaking, given his track record. Getting funding for his documentary projects about European cinema? Forget about it. The man's films receive great reviews, but box office intake is less than stellar. But by and large, Scorsese has struggled to have anyone float him financially on his films. Why did it take him over 20 years to get Gangs... made? No one would give him a freaking dime for it, that's why.

These are what are called "facts", in case you didn't know what they looked like. Looks like somebody needs to actually READ those film history books instead of letting them sit looking all pretty on the bookshelf.

(An aside: you're right that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are little films...they're two of his best comedies to me. He needs to stick to his tales of phallic fingered aliens and repressed homosexuals, you know, stuff he actually knows something about.)

Sep 16 - 02:26 AM

Some guy you dont know

Bruce Campbell

I had Void Moon pegged totally wrong.

I first thought he was an immature, ignorant moron.

But now I see that's he's a smooth talking anti-hero that kicks serious ***.

Keep up the good work.

Sep 15 - 10:28 PM

elcomputo

Martin Dodge

"I had Void Moon pegged totally wrong. I first thought he was an immature, ignorant moron."

Well, first impressions ARE important. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about you.

I'm wondering why you are not out writing a script, making a film, rolling in lavender, or any of a thousand other things you could be doing that have to be more rewarding and/or profitable than debating the worth of one Hollywood director with someone whose mind is made up and whose vocabulary and spelling will probably never improve.

I notice that no one has picked up on one of the statements made in the interview that led to this discussion: that the original negative for "The Godfather" is kaput. Gone forever. I assume it, like darned near every other color film after about 1950, was shot on Kodak's notoriously defective Ektachrome. (If you or anyone else shot 35mm color slides on Ektachrome back when it was on the market, at least some of your pix today are nothing but faint images on otherwise clear film.) Many motion picture prints that survive from the 50's in such color processes as Truecolor have had an extreme shift to red. But that can be fixed, losing an image cannot.

I had known there were problems with deteriorating reels of film, but I had not known anything as recent as "The Godfather" was among them. This, to me, is pretty damned shocking news. It means there are a helluva lot of movies out there that, just like old soldiers like me, are fading away, not just the old silent-era stuff on nitrate film stock. Is anything being done about it? Is there anything that CAN be done about it?

Nov 2 - 12:29 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Someone needs to go back to school to learn basic English 101, huh? In your words, son: "...a couple of guys that no zilch..." Now that's funny. (You brought it up.)

As for serving, you've only served up your own deluded understanding of "facts" especially regarding Scorsese. Eat up this serving:

Scorsese does struggle to get financial backing. You won't believe me, but it's true. I think the man is a genius, a gifted artist where words cannot describe his influence and importance. Yet, his films are not the financial blockbusters many might believe. In short, his films don't make squat in receipts. That is why he struggles to get films made. And even when folks say, "Sure, we'll back your film", he still struggles.

For instance, the Weinsteins promised to back Scorsese's complete script and vision for Gangs... and at the last moment tightened the wallet. All that talk about filmed scenes being cut is mythology because the scenes were never shot in the first place. The Weinsteins did an about face and refused to pay for them...scenes that were to flesh out the DiCaprio character as an orphan and whatnot. (Gangs was a bomb: budget: $97 million, box office came in around $78 million.)

The only way Scorsese has been able to get anything funded recently has been his association with DiCaprio, which he's happy about because it gets him regular work. (Aviator only made $102 million, Departed only $132) Otherwise, Scorsese would be struggling to get anything made. Raging Bull was not a financial success and had UA looking over his shoulder and wondered how they were going to market it. Most of his films have not been blockbusters or modest financial successes by any stretch of the imagination. King of Comedy? After Hours? Last Temptation? Age of Innocence? Bringing Out The Dead? Every one of those was nearly impossible to get funded...all low budget, especially considering the great director he is.

Color of Money was a moderate success ($13 million) considering the financial success of his previous films. Goodfellas not so much a financial success considering how much influence it's had on popular culture and films ($47 million box office, $25 million budget). Cape Fear did quite well (almost $80 million made with a $35 million budget). He had to go back to Goodfellas territory with Casino because it was something that could get made, but that prospect fizzled when it made only $42 million with a budget of over $50 million (a bomb).

If people were beating Scorsese's door down just to throw money at him, why did he have to struggle to get Kundun made? His last two films saw decent returns, again financially speaking, given his track record. Getting funding for his documentary projects about European cinema? Forget about it. The man's films receive great reviews, but box office intake is less than stellar. But by and large, Scorsese has struggled to have anyone float him financially on his films. Why did it take him over 20 years to get Gangs... made? No one would give him a freaking dime for it, that's why.

These are what are called "facts", in case you didn't know what they looked like. Looks like somebody needs to actually READ those film history books instead of letting them sit looking all pretty on the bookshelf.

(An aside: you're right that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are little films...they're two of his best comedies to me. He needs to stick to his tales of phallic fingered aliens and repressed homosexuals, you know, stuff he actually knows something about.)

Sep 16 - 02:26 AM

dracus

Cap Nord

You said: "Aside from box office receipts, has Spielberg really done anything as good as Duel or Jaws?"

Overall I agree with your comment on Friedkin, but you really should have left that line about Spielberg out since it belittles everything else you said.

Sep 16 - 05:10 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Loserman: You basically just proved my point. lol

You throw around a lot of box office numbers like it means something and proves something.

After reading it all, I'm like "What's all this gibberish supposed to prove or mean?"

Are you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?

Either than that, wtf are you trying to say? : )

Sep 16 - 10:41 AM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

You wrote:

"The guy's not exactly kicking over in his grave....so why don't he step up to the plate and get on some good scripts again? You tell me that."

I responded:

"Friedkin and many other directors from the bygone days could be sitting on some good scripts and just can't receive the time of day because of the newbies who control the purse strings in Hollywood. When lauded filmmakers such as Herzog, Lynch, Scorsese, Allen, etc., struggle today to get financial backing for their films, something ain't right. Does that make them irrelevant too?"

You wrote:

"And how does Scorses struggle to get financial backing? Ever see a movie called The Gangs of New York (and its monumental sets of old New York), as well as The Aviator?"

and

"I'm just amazed at the utter lack of knowledgable posters on here who actually know film history (and it shows in the posts above, concerning Scorsese, etc.)." (along with some childish stuff about facts).
---
So, I was pointing out some film history FACTS since that's what you seemingly were hungry for. I provided facts. You asked the question about why Friedkin doesn't step up to the plate and produce a good script. I posed the possibility that he may have some good scripts, but cannot receive financial backing, a problem that even well-seasoned and respected filmmakers (a la Scorsese, etc.) experience today regardless of their importance to cinema history, like Friedkin. You challenged the idea that Scorsese struggles to receive financial backing. I supported the contention that in fact he does struggle in receiving financial backing.

It's the natural progression of a discussion. I'm sorry if you need Cliff's Notes to follow the conversation. I'll try using smaller words, crayons and fingerpaints next time.

And for the record, dracus and all, I'd rather see a Friedkin film any day than a Spielberg film. At least a Friedkin film is going to take me somewhere unexpected, a Spielberg film is rote territory, IMO (knowing perfectly well I'm in the minority on this). Unfortunately, I'd have to wait a long time to see a new Friedkin film.

That's "wtf" I'm talking about.

Sep 16 - 01:47 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: %u201CThe equation = you make a decent movie, you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.%u201D

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.

Now, the question: %u201CAre you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?%u201D

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (%u2018head-in-*** syndrome%u2019) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office number and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.

Sep 16 - 05:31 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Huh?

Oh well, I see that English 101 is working real well for you. Keep it up!

Sep 16 - 10:25 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Great way to duck and dodge.

Though everyone knows when someone oneups another in an argument, the loser (goes with your name btw) always falls back to insults, which is all he/she has.

Why?

Because he/she can't refute what the other person said/wrote and or add anything else to the discussion worthy of a glance.

And the whining continues......

Sep 16 - 11:14 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

No ducking, dodging or quacking from me. It is a statement of exasperation because you refuse to engage in the conversation at hand, aside from making little sense in your 5:31 post (if you're going to chide others about their understanding and usage of English, then you may want to implement that standard yourself; otherwise, what's the point?).

You led the conversation down a path and I followed you. And now you get all uppity about not understanding the points of discussion. I can't help you with that. A little tired of running in circles with you, so go have fun talking and clapping to yourself, something you seem to enjoy very much.

Sep 17 - 08:40 AM

Dr. Evol

Juulut Poulsen

I agree, also I think The Hunted and Rules of Engagement are good solid movies and those were made after 2000, I can say that one of my co-worker said he saw this movie saying itīs the best heīs seen and that turns out to be The Hunted. He may not be as much movie buff as I am (or you) but the movie did its job. Friedkin doesnt look for blockbuster movies, Void youīre allowed to have an opinion as anyone else in here but donīt try to justify your opinion by stating that itīs a fact that Friedkin hasnīt made a good movie for 30 years. You mentioned that you didnīt like Friedkin because he comes off as īpompous, arrogant know-it-allī I guess you need to re-read your previous comments and see if those word fits to your character.

Sep 17 - 10:22 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

I'm not running in circles, since you clearly wont answer simple questions.

It's called having a conversation, with our main topic being William Friedkin.

You diverted off the path with box office numbers, and then in my replying post joked at me for the English within (clearly knowing RT added all the extra %u2019, etc.) and ducked answering the meat of the post.

That's what I call ducking and dodging.

And you STILL wont answer to the posts and its questions about William Friedkin.

Except for making ME the topic of discussion, which this thread isn't.

I call that waddling.

Sep 17 - 12:22 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

You wrote:

"The guy's not exactly kicking over in his grave....so why don't he step up to the plate and get on some good scripts again? You tell me that."

I responded:

"Friedkin and many other directors from the bygone days could be sitting on some good scripts and just can't receive the time of day because of the newbies who control the purse strings in Hollywood. When lauded filmmakers such as Herzog, Lynch, Scorsese, Allen, etc., struggle today to get financial backing for their films, something ain't right. Does that make them irrelevant too?"

You wrote:

"And how does Scorses struggle to get financial backing? Ever see a movie called The Gangs of New York (and its monumental sets of old New York), as well as The Aviator?"

and

"I'm just amazed at the utter lack of knowledgable posters on here who actually know film history (and it shows in the posts above, concerning Scorsese, etc.)." (along with some childish stuff about facts).
---
So, I was pointing out some film history FACTS since that's what you seemingly were hungry for. I provided facts. You asked the question about why Friedkin doesn't step up to the plate and produce a good script. I posed the possibility that he may have some good scripts, but cannot receive financial backing, a problem that even well-seasoned and respected filmmakers (a la Scorsese, etc.) experience today regardless of their importance to cinema history, like Friedkin. You challenged the idea that Scorsese struggles to receive financial backing. I supported the contention that in fact he does struggle in receiving financial backing.

It's the natural progression of a discussion. I'm sorry if you need Cliff's Notes to follow the conversation. I'll try using smaller words, crayons and fingerpaints next time.

And for the record, dracus and all, I'd rather see a Friedkin film any day than a Spielberg film. At least a Friedkin film is going to take me somewhere unexpected, a Spielberg film is rote territory, IMO (knowing perfectly well I'm in the minority on this). Unfortunately, I'd have to wait a long time to see a new Friedkin film.

That's "wtf" I'm talking about.

Sep 16 - 01:47 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: %u201CThe equation = you make a decent movie, you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.%u201D

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.

Now, the question: %u201CAre you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?%u201D

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (%u2018head-in-*** syndrome%u2019) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office number and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.

Sep 16 - 05:31 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Huh?

Oh well, I see that English 101 is working real well for you. Keep it up!

Sep 16 - 10:25 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Great way to duck and dodge.

Though everyone knows when someone oneups another in an argument, the loser (goes with your name btw) always falls back to insults, which is all he/she has.

Why?

Because he/she can't refute what the other person said/wrote and or add anything else to the discussion worthy of a glance.

And the whining continues......

Sep 16 - 11:14 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

No ducking, dodging or quacking from me. It is a statement of exasperation because you refuse to engage in the conversation at hand, aside from making little sense in your 5:31 post (if you're going to chide others about their understanding and usage of English, then you may want to implement that standard yourself; otherwise, what's the point?).

You led the conversation down a path and I followed you. And now you get all uppity about not understanding the points of discussion. I can't help you with that. A little tired of running in circles with you, so go have fun talking and clapping to yourself, something you seem to enjoy very much.

Sep 17 - 08:40 AM

Dr. Evol

Juulut Poulsen

I agree, also I think The Hunted and Rules of Engagement are good solid movies and those were made after 2000, I can say that one of my co-worker said he saw this movie saying itīs the best heīs seen and that turns out to be The Hunted. He may not be as much movie buff as I am (or you) but the movie did its job. Friedkin doesnt look for blockbuster movies, Void youīre allowed to have an opinion as anyone else in here but donīt try to justify your opinion by stating that itīs a fact that Friedkin hasnīt made a good movie for 30 years. You mentioned that you didnīt like Friedkin because he comes off as īpompous, arrogant know-it-allī I guess you need to re-read your previous comments and see if those word fits to your character.

Sep 17 - 10:22 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

I'm not running in circles, since you clearly wont answer simple questions.

It's called having a conversation, with our main topic being William Friedkin.

You diverted off the path with box office numbers, and then in my replying post joked at me for the English within (clearly knowing RT added all the extra %u2019, etc.) and ducked answering the meat of the post.

That's what I call ducking and dodging.

And you STILL wont answer to the posts and its questions about William Friedkin.

Except for making ME the topic of discussion, which this thread isn't.

I call that waddling.

Sep 17 - 12:22 PM

faliklunj

aidan hughes

I did hear that Friedkin got on a lot of people's nerves in the late 70's and could be a bit of a tyrant to work with. Nothing wrong with that, but even directors like the great Orson Welles fell foul of the money men who decide their fates and the fates of their movies.
BTW, Bruce: I've used your line from Crimewave on a number of women.

Can you remember what it was?

Sep 16 - 03:06 PM

Some guy you dont know

Bruce Campbell

There was just so many.

''Keep talkin', baby. Maybe you'll tell me something I don't already know.''
''Hey baby, why don't ya come on over to my pad. We'll have a scotch and sofa.''
''I've never seen you here before. I like that in a woman.''
''Well, with a little practice you could learn to be.''

Sep 16 - 03:40 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Void Moon, I went back and looked to make sure, but your first post has absolutely no facts in it. You said Friedkin hasn't made a good movie in 30 years. That's an opinion, last time I checked

Sep 16 - 03:14 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Ashron: Thanks for posting. You are a very astute observer, and yes it was my opinion--an opinion clearly held by almost all who have leisurely viewed, publicly reviewed and write about filmic history who have watched the stroke of Friedkin's talent over the years.

Basically, it's like saying (on smaller scale) that 100 people see a car accident (two vehicles).

90 of the people say the accident was brought on by car # 1.

While 5 are unsure, and the other 5 say that the accident was clearly caused by car # 2.

When does opinion become fact?

Is it not fact that the Earth is round and not flat (as the ancients so thought)?

But sadly enough, some people still think, to this day, that the Earth is flat.

Does that then make the fact of the Earth as round an opinion because a few disargee?

No.

Sep 16 - 05:42 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Void: What you say above is true, but both the cases you provided above can be proven by evidence. The world is round because we've see pictures of the world. Scientific calculations can prove which car caused the accident. The only "evidence" for Friedkin's decline is his films, and whether they've slipped in quality is a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong; I'm not even saying I disagree, but don't throw out an opinion about something and then expect other people to back up dissenting opinions with facts.

And consider checking your spelling before you send. I don't say that to be snide, but that sort of thing counts on how seriously you're taken. (Not that you necessarily care, but you seem a reasonable person, so I just wanted to mention it.)

Sep 17 - 06:29 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Ah!

Ashron: Most people can see the planet is round because we can clearly see it.

Also, most people can clearly come to a consensus on a particular film by seeing it.

Also, come off of it with the English in the longish post I made to Loserman. It was beyond obvious RT (in hitting the 'Submit' button) added on the %u201C and the like. And Loserman saw that, and ducked the obvious meat of the post.

Here's the post without those (if it comes through):

Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: The equation = you make a decent movie you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.)

Now, the question: Are you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (head-in-*** syndrome) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office numbesr and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.


Understand? : )

Sep 17 - 12:12 PM

Some guy you dont know

Bruce Campbell

There was just so many.

''Keep talkin', baby. Maybe you'll tell me something I don't already know.''
''Hey baby, why don't ya come on over to my pad. We'll have a scotch and sofa.''
''I've never seen you here before. I like that in a woman.''
''Well, with a little practice you could learn to be.''

Sep 16 - 03:40 PM

cincodemayo

Karl Schwabauer

BUG has been one of the best films so far this year. Furthermore Ashley Judd gave a ferocious performance, no doubt, with the help of Friedkin. What I like about him is that his film wheter good or bad are usually worthy of discussion. CRUISING is worth seeing for its sleaziness and gritty portrayal of a subculture in NYC. I will buy the DVD.

Sep 16 - 05:30 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: %u201CThe equation = you make a decent movie, you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.%u201D

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.

Now, the question: %u201CAre you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?%u201D

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (%u2018head-in-*** syndrome%u2019) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office number and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.

Sep 16 - 05:31 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Huh?

Oh well, I see that English 101 is working real well for you. Keep it up!

Sep 16 - 10:25 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Great way to duck and dodge.

Though everyone knows when someone oneups another in an argument, the loser (goes with your name btw) always falls back to insults, which is all he/she has.

Why?

Because he/she can't refute what the other person said/wrote and or add anything else to the discussion worthy of a glance.

And the whining continues......

Sep 16 - 11:14 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

No ducking, dodging or quacking from me. It is a statement of exasperation because you refuse to engage in the conversation at hand, aside from making little sense in your 5:31 post (if you're going to chide others about their understanding and usage of English, then you may want to implement that standard yourself; otherwise, what's the point?).

You led the conversation down a path and I followed you. And now you get all uppity about not understanding the points of discussion. I can't help you with that. A little tired of running in circles with you, so go have fun talking and clapping to yourself, something you seem to enjoy very much.

Sep 17 - 08:40 AM

Dr. Evol

Juulut Poulsen

I agree, also I think The Hunted and Rules of Engagement are good solid movies and those were made after 2000, I can say that one of my co-worker said he saw this movie saying itīs the best heīs seen and that turns out to be The Hunted. He may not be as much movie buff as I am (or you) but the movie did its job. Friedkin doesnt look for blockbuster movies, Void youīre allowed to have an opinion as anyone else in here but donīt try to justify your opinion by stating that itīs a fact that Friedkin hasnīt made a good movie for 30 years. You mentioned that you didnīt like Friedkin because he comes off as īpompous, arrogant know-it-allī I guess you need to re-read your previous comments and see if those word fits to your character.

Sep 17 - 10:22 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

I'm not running in circles, since you clearly wont answer simple questions.

It's called having a conversation, with our main topic being William Friedkin.

You diverted off the path with box office numbers, and then in my replying post joked at me for the English within (clearly knowing RT added all the extra %u2019, etc.) and ducked answering the meat of the post.

That's what I call ducking and dodging.

And you STILL wont answer to the posts and its questions about William Friedkin.

Except for making ME the topic of discussion, which this thread isn't.

I call that waddling.

Sep 17 - 12:22 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Ashron: Thanks for posting. You are a very astute observer, and yes it was my opinion--an opinion clearly held by almost all who have leisurely viewed, publicly reviewed and write about filmic history who have watched the stroke of Friedkin's talent over the years.

Basically, it's like saying (on smaller scale) that 100 people see a car accident (two vehicles).

90 of the people say the accident was brought on by car # 1.

While 5 are unsure, and the other 5 say that the accident was clearly caused by car # 2.

When does opinion become fact?

Is it not fact that the Earth is round and not flat (as the ancients so thought)?

But sadly enough, some people still think, to this day, that the Earth is flat.

Does that then make the fact of the Earth as round an opinion because a few disargee?

No.

Sep 16 - 05:42 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Void: What you say above is true, but both the cases you provided above can be proven by evidence. The world is round because we've see pictures of the world. Scientific calculations can prove which car caused the accident. The only "evidence" for Friedkin's decline is his films, and whether they've slipped in quality is a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong; I'm not even saying I disagree, but don't throw out an opinion about something and then expect other people to back up dissenting opinions with facts.

And consider checking your spelling before you send. I don't say that to be snide, but that sort of thing counts on how seriously you're taken. (Not that you necessarily care, but you seem a reasonable person, so I just wanted to mention it.)

Sep 17 - 06:29 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Ah!

Ashron: Most people can see the planet is round because we can clearly see it.

Also, most people can clearly come to a consensus on a particular film by seeing it.

Also, come off of it with the English in the longish post I made to Loserman. It was beyond obvious RT (in hitting the 'Submit' button) added on the %u201C and the like. And Loserman saw that, and ducked the obvious meat of the post.

Here's the post without those (if it comes through):

Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: The equation = you make a decent movie you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.)

Now, the question: Are you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (head-in-*** syndrome) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office numbesr and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.


Understand? : )

Sep 17 - 12:12 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

Huh?

Oh well, I see that English 101 is working real well for you. Keep it up!

Sep 16 - 10:25 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Great way to duck and dodge.

Though everyone knows when someone oneups another in an argument, the loser (goes with your name btw) always falls back to insults, which is all he/she has.

Why?

Because he/she can't refute what the other person said/wrote and or add anything else to the discussion worthy of a glance.

And the whining continues......

Sep 16 - 11:14 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

No ducking, dodging or quacking from me. It is a statement of exasperation because you refuse to engage in the conversation at hand, aside from making little sense in your 5:31 post (if you're going to chide others about their understanding and usage of English, then you may want to implement that standard yourself; otherwise, what's the point?).

You led the conversation down a path and I followed you. And now you get all uppity about not understanding the points of discussion. I can't help you with that. A little tired of running in circles with you, so go have fun talking and clapping to yourself, something you seem to enjoy very much.

Sep 17 - 08:40 AM

Dr. Evol

Juulut Poulsen

I agree, also I think The Hunted and Rules of Engagement are good solid movies and those were made after 2000, I can say that one of my co-worker said he saw this movie saying itīs the best heīs seen and that turns out to be The Hunted. He may not be as much movie buff as I am (or you) but the movie did its job. Friedkin doesnt look for blockbuster movies, Void youīre allowed to have an opinion as anyone else in here but donīt try to justify your opinion by stating that itīs a fact that Friedkin hasnīt made a good movie for 30 years. You mentioned that you didnīt like Friedkin because he comes off as īpompous, arrogant know-it-allī I guess you need to re-read your previous comments and see if those word fits to your character.

Sep 17 - 10:22 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

I'm not running in circles, since you clearly wont answer simple questions.

It's called having a conversation, with our main topic being William Friedkin.

You diverted off the path with box office numbers, and then in my replying post joked at me for the English within (clearly knowing RT added all the extra %u2019, etc.) and ducked answering the meat of the post.

That's what I call ducking and dodging.

And you STILL wont answer to the posts and its questions about William Friedkin.

Except for making ME the topic of discussion, which this thread isn't.

I call that waddling.

Sep 17 - 12:22 PM

Void Moon

Void Moon

Great way to duck and dodge.

Though everyone knows when someone oneups another in an argument, the loser (goes with your name btw) always falls back to insults, which is all he/she has.

Why?

Because he/she can't refute what the other person said/wrote and or add anything else to the discussion worthy of a glance.

And the whining continues......

Sep 16 - 11:14 PM

Loserman

Fred Doberson

No ducking, dodging or quacking from me. It is a statement of exasperation because you refuse to engage in the conversation at hand, aside from making little sense in your 5:31 post (if you're going to chide others about their understanding and usage of English, then you may want to implement that standard yourself; otherwise, what's the point?).

You led the conversation down a path and I followed you. And now you get all uppity about not understanding the points of discussion. I can't help you with that. A little tired of running in circles with you, so go have fun talking and clapping to yourself, something you seem to enjoy very much.

Sep 17 - 08:40 AM

Dr. Evol

Juulut Poulsen

I agree, also I think The Hunted and Rules of Engagement are good solid movies and those were made after 2000, I can say that one of my co-worker said he saw this movie saying itīs the best heīs seen and that turns out to be The Hunted. He may not be as much movie buff as I am (or you) but the movie did its job. Friedkin doesnt look for blockbuster movies, Void youīre allowed to have an opinion as anyone else in here but donīt try to justify your opinion by stating that itīs a fact that Friedkin hasnīt made a good movie for 30 years. You mentioned that you didnīt like Friedkin because he comes off as īpompous, arrogant know-it-allī I guess you need to re-read your previous comments and see if those word fits to your character.

Sep 17 - 10:22 AM

Void Moon

Void Moon

I'm not running in circles, since you clearly wont answer simple questions.

It's called having a conversation, with our main topic being William Friedkin.

You diverted off the path with box office numbers, and then in my replying post joked at me for the English within (clearly knowing RT added all the extra %u2019, etc.) and ducked answering the meat of the post.

That's what I call ducking and dodging.

And you STILL wont answer to the posts and its questions about William Friedkin.

Except for making ME the topic of discussion, which this thread isn't.

I call that waddling.

Sep 17 - 12:22 PM

islander Reel

Paul Ume

Saw "Bug." The "textures" presented in the details were fantastic.
It sets an almost 3d stage for the actors.
The film in it's entirety fell short (for me). Still, most movies I see,
I'm able to appreciate things many don't (cam operator for 20 years).

Re: Friedkin not having a "hit" lately...his vision is still there
(a potent beast).

Re: Bruce (if it's him). Thought you stole the movie in "Spiderman."
You could build a whole comedy around your restaurant character.
Unquestionably the greatest "B" actor of all time.

Sep 17 - 12:29 AM

What's Hot On RT

Box Office
Box Office

Planet Of The Apes Is No. 1

<em>Unbroken</em>
Unbroken

Trailer for Angelina Jolie's latest

<em>The Hunger Games</em>
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

<em>Jimi</em> Trailer
Jimi Trailer

Clips: Andre 3000 plays Hendrix!

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile