Emailer Boarwild sent me a link to this terrific piece on current things Hollweird in the Brit Times of London. A few tid bits
This is Message Year in Hollywood. Fed up with the direction that America is taking — all this God, patriotism, traditional family, War on Terror stuff, America’s entertainment elite have taken the courageous decision to lead the fightback from the pool decks of Beverly Hills and the penthouses of Manhattan. Voting with their Armani tuxedos and their Isaac Mizrahi gowns, they’re going to take back their country from the warmongers and religious fanatics.And nearly ends with
And having churned out all this bilious nonsense, Hollywood executives shake their heads in puzzlement as to why Americans have stopped going to the movies. Sure, it may have something to do with ticket prices and the easy availability of giant home entertainment systems. But having an 86in screen in the kitchen didn’t stop millions of people from going to see The Passion of the Christ or Narnia. Nor, lest you misunderstand me and think this is a plea for Hollywood to turn itself into the entertainment arm of militant Christianity, did it stop them going to see King Kong or Shrek?The piece concludes with this famous quote from the most quoteable figure Hollywood ever produced, Sam Goldwyn
“A good movie is one which begins with an earthquake or a volcanic eruption and then works up quickly to some kind of climax.”Sam would have a very tough time getting a job in Hollywood these days.....
5 comments:
eventually they will get tired of losing money. all the same Howard, how do billionaires wind up becoming socialists and how do socialist wind up becoming billionaires? a socialist billionaire seems to me to be a oxymoron.
Simple: all these billionaires either inherited the money or made literally overnight. This description especially includes movie people. Now, people who obtain riches without work or far too quickly consider themselves unworthy of the money they feel they extracted FROM somebody else or a mob ofr somebody elses. Both Cuban and Skoll made theirs overnight, ditto for Clooney. Lewis made his very very fast, but hardly overnight as did Soros, people like this tend to be dominators and impose their will on everyone possible.
I think Lewis is alone in the crowd of getting rich without really working.
Well, Howard, I've thought it over, and I think Hollyweird is our best weapon. As long as the rest of the world thinks Hollywood's America is anything like the US, they will continue to miscalculate.
Never has the money of foolish people spent so foolishly done so much good.
Howard, I can't find an email link on your site. I wanted to send you this in an email:
-- david.davenport.1@netzero.com
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Which Major Daily Newspaper Will Lose the Most Readers in 2006?
Judging by the results of the non-scientific survey that has been running in the right-hand column of this blog for several weeks, it looks like The New York Times will be the big circulation loser for 2006 with 46 percent of the respondents checking the Gotham paper's box.
Second is The Los Angeles Times at 22 percent , while running third is The Philadelphia Inquirer at 11 percent. Biggest surprise is the low number of survey takers giving the nod to The San Francisco Chronicle, which lost an amazing 16 percent of its subscribers last year.
My personal pick is the Knight-Ridder Newspapers-owned Inquirer, which, along with the Philadelphia Daily News, has suffered staggering circulation, advertising and editorial staff losses for several years. The weakness of these two dailies is a major reason why Knight-Ridder is viewed by many industry observers as a prime takeover target.
For those who might wonder why this question is even a topic of discussion (and believe me, it is among the most intensely whispered-about topics at professional journalism gatherings these days), check out Hugh Hewitt's update of his Weekly Standard piece, "The Media's Ancien Regime."
...
http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/01/which-major-daily-newspaper-will-lose.html
Howard, is acting that easy? how many actors actually make it big? how many movies you got to make in order to stay rich for life? Considering how fickle their working careers can be, the taxes they have to pay, the payments to the agents, lawyers and other overhead why would they want to put a noose around their necks?
As for Cuban and Skoll I can't comment other than to say I can't believe they really advocate a view that if actually implement would they would loose it all. Can they really believe this crap or is it some rather cynical ploy? The older I get the less know. why would anyone pick a fight with their wallet?
Post a Comment